Mr Lawrence v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Home Affairs) - February 2024

In Deepan Budlakoti v Canada, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated that: The relevant criteria for assessing whether or not the specific interference with family life can be objectively justified must be considered in the light, 11 on the one hand, of the significance of the State party’s reasons for the removal of the person concerned, and on the other hand, the degree of hardship the. [...] At the stage where the Minister considered revocation of the visa cancellation, he acknowledged that it would be in the best interests of the minor children in Mr Lawrence’s life for the cancellation to be revoked, and gave significant weight to this consideration in his favour.29 I can infer that it is likely that had the delegate turned their mind to this issue when initially considering the vis. [...] The decision to cancel Mr Lawrence’s visa, without notice and while he was out of the country, cannot be objectively justified given the nature of the assertions made in the decision, and the weakness of the evidence relied upon. [...] On 19 January 2024, the Department provided the following response to my findings and recommendations: The Department of Home Affairs (the department) values the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) to inquire into human rights complaints and acknowledges the findings identified in this report and the recommendations made by the President of the Commission. [...] The General Cancellations Procedural Instruction provides officers with guidance on the application of section 116(1)(e) and notes that for the ground to be made out, delegates need to articulate the specific details or particulars of the risk that the person’s presence in Australia poses to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community (or a segment of the Australian community, or.