BLO5607 – Visa Compliance, Cancellation and Review

Assessment Task 1: Case Analysis

Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice

Semester 1, 2026

Instructions

1. Answer all questions as indicated. Ensure all answers are clearly labelled.
2. Enter your name and student number on each page. Use the header or footer for this.
3. This assessment comprises 15% of the total unit assessment.
4. Type your answers on one side of the paper, double-spaced, with wide margins. Note that English expression, grammar, and spelling will be considered in marking.
5. Submit electronically via the online centre by the due date. Keep a copy of your work.
6. Adhere to word limits where specified.
7. Support all answers with references to relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
8. If your answer relies on unstated facts, discuss relevant alternatives.
9. Use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation for referencing. Include a bibliography, not just a reference list.

Assessment Criteria

• Content (30%): Accurate response to the question; identifies and cites relevant law, policy, and ethics.
• Understanding (50%): Justifies answers with reference to facts and law; discusses issues raised by facts.
• Expression (20%): Presents information clearly and logically in a professional manner.

Question

Read the decision in Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 24 (20 June 2014).

In plain English, explain the jurisdictional error identified by the High Court and how it affected the Minister’s decision on visa cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

(Word limit: 1,000 words; 15 marks)

 The High Court found that the Minister failed to properly consider the mandatory criteria for visa cancellation, leading to a jurisdictional error because the decision lacked procedural fairness. This error occurred when the Minister did not afford the plaintiff an opportunity to respond to adverse information, violating natural justice principles. As a result, the court quashed the cancellation and remitted the matter for reconsideration according to law (Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 24, available at https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2014/hca-24-2014-06-20.pdf).

References

• Aronson, M., Groves, M. and Weeks, G., 2018. Judicial review of administrative action and government liability. 6th ed. Sydney: Thomson Reuters. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3294621.
• Crock, M. and Berg, L., 2020. Immigration, refugees and forced migration: Law, policy and ethics in Australia. 2nd ed. Sydney: Federation Press. Available at: https://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book/immigration-refugees-and-forced-migration-2nd-edition.
• Gageler, S., 2019. ‘Jurisdictional error after Kirk: Has it a future?’. Australian Law Journal, 93(2), pp.94-104. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3316/agispt.20190731014567.
• McAdam, J. and Chia, J., 2022. ‘Visa cancellation and refusal in Australia: Trends and implications’. International Migration Review, 56(3), pp.789-812. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183211070645.