The High Court has dismissed by consent a special case on whether cl 866.222 in the Migration Act Regulations 1994 (Cth) sch 2 was, during its period of purported operation, invalid or of no effect. The plaintiff was an unauthorised maritime arrival who the Minister permitted to make an application for a protection visa, which the plaintiff did on 6 December 2012. On 13 December 2013 the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrival) Regulation 2013 (Cth) was made, adding cl 866.222. That clause provided for additional criteria for the grant of a protection visa that the plaintiff did not meet. On 5 February 2014, the plaintiff’s application was refused on the basis that he did not satisfy the criteria in cl 866.222. The plaintiff now seeks to argue that cl 866.222 excluded a class of persons from eligibility on the basis of mode of entry into Australia, and is consequently inconsistent with the requirement in s 36(2)(a) that the applicant’s presence ‘in Australia’ is the only requirement, and that the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not permit the imposition of exclusionary criteria beyond those specified in arts 1, 32 and 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951). The 12 August hearing date was vacated and on 13 August a consent order dismissing the proceeding was issued.
|Result||Dismissed by consent|
|High Court Documents||Plaintiff S89/2014
|Directions Hearing|| HCATrans 91||28 April 2014|