Urgent Federal Court Intervention Prevents Unlawful Deportation

It is not about the size of the law firm in the fight. It is all about the size of the fight in the law firm. Phillip Silver and Associates Immigration lawyers have a proven track record. This case we won last week proves we fight for our clients leave no stone unturned.

 

The fact of the case.

The client had attempted to return to Australia on his Skills in Demand (subclass 482)  visa which had been granted in 2024. After arriving at Sydney airport on the 19th May 2026 the Dept. of Home Affairs cancelled his visa and detained him with the intention of deporting him the following day. The subclass 482 visas of his wife and 2 children (who ere in Sydney) we also cancelled as secondary applicants. The subclass 482 visa had been cancelled as it was alleged the client was no longer working for his nominated employer who had sponsored him for the visa.

 

I was notified that someone had posted on Facebook that their husband had been detained and had been sent to a detention centre to be deported. I called the person at 7.30am the following day.

 

By 1pm that day I had lodged a court application against the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship  requesting the following court orders :

 

  1. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship    be restrained from removing the Applicant from Australia until further order of the Court
  2. An order that the visa cancellation by the Minister be quashed.

 

By 8pm the same day the Judge had ordered the visa cancellation to be set aside and the applicant was released to be with his family in Sydney.

 

The full court order was a follows:

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application be allowed.
  2. A writ of certiorari issue, directed to the Respondent, quashing its decision dated 19 May 2026.
  3. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs to be agreed or assessed.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

  1. The Respondent accepts that the decision dated 19 May 2026 is affected by jurisdictional error for the following reasons.
  1. In the context of addressing the issue of the best interests of the minor children, the Respondent failed to consider the best interests of the children as a primary consideration in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Convention of the Rights of the – 2 – Prepared in the Melbourne Registry

Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building, Level 7, 305 William Street, Melbourne, Telephone 1300 720 980 Child (CROC) as required by the PAM3 (which it had purported to assess his cancellation against) (Jabbour v Secretary, DHA [2019] FCA 452; MILGEA v Gray [1994] FCA 225).

  1. The Respondent accepts that the error was material to its decision because there is a realistic possibility that consideration of the best interest of the children as a primary consideration could have affected the delegate’s consideration of the best interests of the minor children in a way that was to the Applica nt’s benefit in determining what weight ought to be given in assessing whether to cancel the Applicant’s Skills in Demand (subclass 482) visa: LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12.

By the Court

 

Federal Circuit and Family Court _Redacted