30 秒版 · 联邦巡回与家事法院（二庭）· McCabe 法官
没申报电子烟，签证在机场被取消；法院把取消决定撤了。
不是因为他没错——他承认答错了。而是官员把一条从没问清楚的「犯罪记录」算成了不利因素，又没让他就这一点回应。五个理由，两个成立，决定被撤销。
被审查的决定：部长代表（delegate）依 s116(1)(d)「提供错误信息」取消其 444 签证，2026-09-23，人还在机场
理由一没考虑取消的法律后果不成立 →02
理由二没处理他提出的一项主张不成立 →02
理由三凭不知内容的犯罪记录加权，不理性成立 →03
理由四没让他就犯罪记录回应，程序不公成立 →04
理由五没按 s120 书面披露不成立 →05
QUASHED结果：调卷令（certiorari）撤销原决定；部长承担讼费。
¶ 原文段落号，点开看原句和 PDF 页码
COMPUTED由原文数字推算
示意图形示意，非原件
比方日常类比，非原文
01 · 时间线
机场那一晚
要点入境卡上，犯罪记录他答「是」，禁品他答「否」。搜出电子烟后，四段访谈里官员始终没问那条犯罪记录。
先猜再看
他行李里搜出多少支电子烟？
示意39 这个数、入境卡两题的勾选、珀斯机场与日期来自原文；箱子外观、电子烟形状与卡片版式为重绘。
四段访谈，按时间走一遍
19:26–19:43
第二段：他主动提起犯罪记录
他说有犯罪记录、工作用的警察证明就在手上；官员只回了句 Yes，没追问，也没要看证明。随后转去问电子烟。
示意表盘一圈 = 19:00–22:00。实心弧是原文写明的时段；虚线端表示原文没写结束时间。
先猜再看
从拿到书面取消意向通知，到被要求当场回应，他有多久？
细节：他是谁、事后怎样
- 新西兰公民，西澳偏远矿场的 FIFO（飞进飞出）工人，平时住珀斯，也常去巴厘岛；称在澳生活 20 年，有房有工作有家人。
- 他说电子烟大多自用，也承认可能卖掉或送人一些。
- 他起初对搜包官员说自己如实填卡，后来才承认禁品题答错。
- 取消后被拘留；他先拿到禁止移除的禁令（[2026] FedCFamC2G 1899），再走加急司法复核。
02 · 理由一、二 · 不成立
一条被 s195A 剪断的后果链
要点申请人说：取消 → 必被拘留 → 被移除 → 变成「行为关注非公民」→ 永远拿不到 444，而官员没考虑这一点。法官认为部长有权亲自授签，所以「移除」不是取消的直接、即时后果。
- 444 签证
- 比方像每次入境当场发的通行证：出境就作废，回来再领新的。
正式：special category visa（特别类别签证），依 s32 只发给新西兰公民；获准入境后可无限期居住工作；离境即结束，返澳重新签发，因此属临时签证。 - 行为关注
非公民 - 比方被遣送过一次就终身挂着的标签。
正式：behaviour concern non-citizen，s5 定义包括曾被从澳大利亚或他国移除、递解的人；444 要求申请人不是这种人。
动手：切换两种读法
决定取消 444 签证
→
s189非法非公民必须拘留
→
s195A部长可亲自向被拘留者授签
s196 / s198拘留到被移除
→
s5成为行为关注非公民
→
s32(2)(a)(ii)永久无资格申请 444
申请人：一旦取消，后面每一步都是法律强制的，最终永远失去 444 资格；官员表格里没写这一点。
细节：官员表格到底写了哪些后果？理由二为何也败？
- ✓可能成为非法非公民
- ✓可能被拒绝入境清关、拘留并移除
- ✓可能有最长 3 年的禁止期
- ✓在澳期间可能不能有效申请某些签证
- ✗表上没有：沦为行为关注非公民后永久失去 444 资格
- 部长先主张可从「3 年禁止期」推断官员想到了 444 后果，法官不接受：表格匆忙，不能假设他想得更深。真正让理由一失败的是 s195A。
- s195A 必须由部长亲自行使；本案没有迹象显示申请人申请过。
- 理由二：表格第 8、9.1–9.3 项概括了他的生活与家人主张，整体看，官员已回应其后果主张。
- 法官引用的标准：须考虑「决定的直接且即时的法定后果」（Chukwuma [2026] FCAFC 121）。
03 · 理由三 · 成立
给一个没打开的盒子称重
要点官员只知道「有犯罪记录」，不知道是什么罪，就给了它支持取消的 some weight。法官：没有合理的决策者会不问清楚就这样加权。
- 不理性加权
- 比方快递员只知道「箱子里有东西」，就一律按某个固定重量收费。
正式：决策者可自定权重，但权重不能不理性，须有逻辑上的证明基础，不能任意。
示意条目和权重措辞来自原文；版式为重绘。法律后果一栏的 some weight 见。
动手：换一种犯罪记录，分量该变吗？
法官说应有的分量
几乎不计更重
官员实际给的
some weight · 固定
法官：不知道内容，就无法合理定权重；官员照样给了 some weight，这就是错误所在。
示意刻度只表示方向，原文没有数值。例子取自。
先猜再看
部长的律师说：任何犯罪记录本身就是坏事，不看细节也能加一点权重。法官接受吗？
细节：证据、实质影响
- 部门手里唯一的记录就是入境卡，只显示「有」，没写是什么罪。他提到警察证明，官员没要看。
- 入境卡问这一题，本意就是提醒官员去问严重性、时间和频率。
- 错误有实质影响：问清楚了，结论可能不同。法官说本案真正的毛病就在这里。
04 · 理由四 · 成立
只说考电子烟，却按犯罪记录扣分
要点通知、口头宣读、附件 A 和 B 都只谈禁品；犯罪记录从没被点名，最后却放在了支持取消的一侧。
- 程序公平
- 比方考前老师只说考第 3 章，阅卷却按第 5 章扣分。
正式：s119 要求书面通知取消理由并邀请回应；s118A 规定该分部是程序公平要求的穷尽规定。申请人援引 SZBEL：不点明另有关切，等于把人「哄进虚假的安全感」。
动手：决定里用到的 7 个考量，哪些事先告诉过他？
已翻 0 / 7
法官：他没得到依 s119(1)(b) 回应的机会，理由四成立。
细节：访谈现场
- 官员在访谈中一带而过，给人的印象是他不在乎这条记录。
- 回应安排在通知送达约 30 分钟后的访谈中，时间短、处境不利。
- 他回应时说：自己不是罪犯，只是犯了个大错。
05 · 理由五 · 不成立
s120 的字面赢了公平直觉
要点犯罪记录这条信息是他自己在入境卡上写的，所以 s120(1)(c) 的豁免适用，不必再书面披露。法官「不情愿地」驳回。
- 相关信息
- 比方对方要用你不知道的材料，得先给你看；你自己交的，不用再给你看一遍。
正式：s120(1) 的 relevant information，须同时满足 (a)–(d) 四项，才须书面披露并邀请评论。
动手：把「犯罪记录」这条信息逐项过一遍
| (a) | 会成为取消理由或其一部分 | 满足（部长承认） |
| (b) | 专门关于本人，不只关于某类人 | 原文未讨论 |
| (c) | 不是由持有人自己提供的 | 不满足：他自己在入境卡上写的 |
| (d) | 未在 s119 通知中披露 | 满足（附件 A 未提） |
(c) 不满足，s120 不要求披露，理由五不成立。法官补了一句：真正的毛病是官员从没问过记录内容。
细节：双方怎么吵
- 部长承认这条信息落入 (a)，但主张 (c) 豁免。
- 部长：s359A 就明文写了时间限制，s120 没写，说明国会不想加。
- 原文没有讨论 (b)。
06 · 结果
两处错误，足以撤销
要点决定至少在两方面有管辖权错误，且官员本可能作出不同决定，所以撤销；部长付讼费。
- 调卷令
- 比方上级把下面的决定调上来，盖章作废。
正式：writ of certiorari，撤销 2026-09-23 的取消决定；另请求的 mandamus 既不必要也不恰当。
一 ✗
二 ✗
三 ✓
四 ✓
五 ✗
你答得上来吗
你答得上来吗
法官认定成立的是哪两个理由？
你答得上来吗
理由一为什么失败？
你答得上来吗
s120 为什么不要求书面披露犯罪记录？
原文出处索引
- Orders · PDF 第 3 页
A writ of certiorari be issued directed to the respondent quashing the decision of his delegate dated 23 September 2026.
- Orders · PDF 第 3 页
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or, failing agreement, as taxed.
- 签署页 · PDF 第 15 页
Dated: 23 October 2026
- ¶2 · PDF 第 4 页
A delegate of the minister decided to cancel Mr Jacobsen’s freshly-issued subclass 444 visa while Mr Jacobsen was still at the airport.
- ¶2 · PDF 第 4 页
…the delegate relied on s 116(1)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). That provision permits cancellation of a visa where the visa-holder has provided incorrect information.
- ¶3 · PDF 第 4 页
Mr Jacobsen does not dispute that he gave an incorrect answer on the incoming passenger card.
- ¶3 · PDF 第 4 页
He obtained an injunction which prevented his removal from Australia while his application for judicial review of the delegate’s decision proceeded: see Jacobsen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 1899.
- ¶5 · PDF 第 4 页
…the applicant also sought the issue of a writ of mandamus but that is neither necessary nor appropriate where the minister’s cancellation of the subclass 444 visa has been quashed.
- ¶5 · PDF 第 4 页
I issued my judgment to that effect on 13 October 2026 after the hearing which was conducted remotely from the Hobart registry the day before.
- ¶6 · PDF 第 4 页
Mr Jacobsen works at a remote mine site in Western Australia. He is a ‘FIFO’ worker. When not working at the mine, I gather he lives in Perth but he also spends time in Bali.
- ¶7 · PDF 第 4 页
Once admitted to Australia, the holder of a subclass 444 visa can live and work in this country indefinitely unless the visa is cancelled for some reason.
- ¶7 · PDF 第 4 页
A visa that is not otherwise cancelled ends (or is surrendered) when the visa holder departs Australia; if they return to Australia, a fresh visa is issued.
- ¶7 · PDF 第 4 页
It follows the subclass 444 visa is a species of temporary visa.
- ¶7 · PDF 第 4 页
A subclass 444 visa may be issued to a non-citizen … who is a New Zealand citizen and “neither a behaviour concern non-citizen nor a health concern non-citizen”: s 32(2)(a)(ii)
- ¶8 · PDF 第 5 页
‘yes’ when asked whether he had any criminal convictions, and ‘no’ when asked whether he was bringing any prohibited goods into Australia.
- ¶8 · PDF 第 5 页
Mr Jacobsen completed an incoming passenger card when he landed at Perth International Airport on 23 September 2026 after an overseas trip.
- ¶9 · PDF 第 5 页
When Mr Jacobsen’s luggage was searched at the airport, officials found 39 vape devices and associated paraphernalia.
- ¶10 · PDF 第 5 页
Mr Jacobsen initially told the officer who searched the bags that he had provided truthful answers to the questions on the incoming passenger card.
- ¶11 · PDF 第 5 页
In the first part, which commenced at 7:13pm, the delegate asked questions about the applicant’s identity and his visa status.
- ¶11 · PDF 第 5 页
The second part of the interview commenced at 7:26pm after a short break.
- ¶11 · PDF 第 5 页
[Applicant:] … And my current job now, I just happen to have my police clearance or statement from them. [Delegate:] Yes.
- ¶12 · PDF 第 5 页
The delegate did not ask for any information about the criminal convictions, nor did he ask to see the police clearance which the applicant mentioned.
- ¶13 · PDF 第 6 页
The applicant said the items were mostly for his personal use, although he acknowledged he might sell some or give them away.
- ¶13 · PDF 第 6 页
This portion of the interview concluded at 7:43pm.
- ¶14 · PDF 第 6 页
The third portion of the interview commenced at 9:16pm when the delegate provided the applicant with a written Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation in accordance with s 119 of the Act.
- ¶14 · PDF 第 6 页
The purpose of your travel to Australia, the extent of compliance with your visa condition …, the degree of hardship …, the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose, your behaviour in relation to the department …, whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision.
- ¶15 · PDF 第 6 页
I note the delegate did not refer to the applicant’s criminal convictions nor the fact he had disclosed the existence of the convictions on the incoming passenger card as a factor that might be taken into account…
- ¶16 · PDF 第 6 页
This third part of the interview in which the delegate explained the Notice concluded at 9:29pm. The interview resumed some 15 minutes later at 9:45pm…
- ¶16 · PDF 第 6 页
He denied that he was a criminal, and he insisted he had merely made a mistake when he failed to disclose the prohibited items.
- ¶17 · PDF 第 7 页
At item 6, the delegate recorded he was satisfied there was a ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(d) (ie, providing an incoming passenger card containing incorrect information in contravention of s 102).
- ¶18 · PDF 第 7 页
…purpose of his stay … “some weight against visa cancellation”; … history of compliance … “some weight against cancellation”; … degree of hardship … “some weight against visa cancellation”.
- ¶19 · PDF 第 7 页
In the absence of such an explanation, the delegate gave “this consideration significant weight towards visa cancellation”.
- ¶19 · PDF 第 7 页
The delegate said the applicant had been compliant during the interview: that consideration was given “some weight against the visa cancellation.”
- ¶19 · PDF 第 7 页
The delegate commented: “Considering the criminal records, I give this consideration some weight towards visa cancellation.”
- ¶19 · PDF 第 7 页
…the only departmental record in evidence was the incoming passenger card which indicated the applicant had criminal convictions but did not identify what those convictions were.
- ¶20 · PDF 第 7–8 页
The visa holder may become an unlawful non-citizen; … may be refused immigration clearance, detained and removed …; … exclusion period … up to 3 years; … prevented from making a valid visa application for certain classes of visa while in Australia.
- ¶21 · PDF 第 8 页
After weighing up all of the information available to me, I am satisfied that the reasons for cancelling the visa outweigh the reasons for not cancelling.
- ¶22 · PDF 第 8 页
He obtained an injunction restraining the minister from removing him from Australia and was languishing in immigration detention pending the hearing.
- ¶25 · PDF 第 8 页
If the applicant had a lengthy record that revealed numerous offences, recent offences which had been committed while the applicant was out of the country, or a serious offence (like a conviction for importing prohibited items, a crime of dishonesty or contraventions of a migration law), that information would typically count more heavily…
- ¶25 · PDF 第 8 页
A record which disclosed only a minor offence, or offences of greater antiquity, or offences committed overseas which are not offences in Australia, would presumably count for much less — or not count at all.
- ¶26 · PDF 第 8 页
The question on the incoming passenger card was obviously intended to alert officials to the need to seek details so they might consider the seriousness, recency and frequency of any convictions.
- ¶27 · PDF 第 9 页
Mr Johnson, counsel for the minister, suggested the delegate was entitled to attach some weight … because having any criminal record was presumptively a bad thing.
- ¶27 · PDF 第 9 页
A delegate would be acting arbitrarily if they assigned all criminal records the same negative weight without regard to their particulars.
- ¶28 · PDF 第 9 页
The assignment of weight cannot be irrational, and the assignment must have some logically probative basis. It cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
- ¶28 · PDF 第 9 页
…no reasonable decision-maker would have proceeded to assign “some weight” to a disclosure about criminal convictions without asking for clarification about what those convictions were.
- ¶28 · PDF 第 9 页
…the decision-maker could have reached a different conclusion if he had explored the particulars of the applicant’s criminal record and assigned weight to this consideration on a more informed basis.
- ¶30 · PDF 第 9 页
(Section 118A says the provisions in sub-div D of pt 2 div 3 provide an exhaustive statement of the procedural fairness requirements.) … Section 119 requires that the visa holder be given a written notice…
- ¶31 · PDF 第 9–10 页
…the failure to signal the Tribunal had different issues in mind effectively lulled the applicant into a false sense of security…
- ¶32 · PDF 第 10 页
The delegate’s treatment of the issue in the interview clearly conveyed an impression that he was not concerned about the applicant’s record because he was focused on what had not been disclosed.
- ¶32 · PDF 第 10 页
I’m not a criminal. You treat me as a criminal even yourself now as an interviewer. … It was a bad mistake and I understand that.
- ¶34 · PDF 第 10 页
The delegate elected to seek that response in the interview which resumed approximately 30 minutes after the Notice was first provided to the applicant.
- ¶35 · PDF 第 11 页
Attachment ‘A’ to the Notice only referred to the failure to give a correct answer to the question about prohibited goods. Attachment ‘B’ … also omitted any reference to the criminal record.
- ¶35 · PDF 第 11 页
It follows the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment in accordance with s 119(1)(b). That means the fourth ground is made out.
- ¶36 · PDF 第 11 页
(a) would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for cancelling a visa; (b) is specifically about the holder or another person …; (c) was not given by the holder; (d) was not disclosed to the holder in the notification under section 119.
- ¶38 · PDF 第 11 页
The minister accepted the information about criminal convictions was captured by s 120(1)(a) but he claims the exemption in s 120(1)(c) applies because the information … had already been provided by the visa holder on the incoming passenger card.
- ¶39 · PDF 第 11 页
He argued s 120(1)(c) only exempted information supplied by the visa holder after the s 119 notice was provided.
- ¶40 · PDF 第 11–12 页
Mr Johnson added the parliament pointedly chose not to include express limiting language as it had done in other ‘fairness’ provisions like s 359A of the Act.
- ¶41 · PDF 第 12 页
But I must reluctantly accept the plain text of s 120 does not require such disclosure in circumstances where the applicant had already disclosed he had convictions.
- ¶41 · PDF 第 12 页
I reiterate that the real vice in this case lies in the fact the delegate did not obtain information about the particulars of the convictions at any point in the process…
- ¶43 · PDF 第 12–13 页
A decision-maker exercising a discretion under the Act must consider “the direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences of the decision in contemplation”: Chukwuma … [2026] FCAFC 121 at [64]
- ¶44 · PDF 第 13 页
Section 5 of the Act defines ‘behaviour concern non-citizen’ to include a person who “has been removed or deported from Australia or removed or deported from another country”.
- ¶45 · PDF 第 13 页
He pointed out s 189 requires officers of the minister’s department to detain unlawful non-citizens. Section 196 says detention … would continue until they were removed pursuant to s 198…
- ¶47 · PDF 第 14 页
A person who becomes a ‘behaviour concern non-citizen’ is not subject to an exclusion period in relation to the subclass 444 visa. That person is permanently ineligible for that class of visa…
- ¶49 · PDF 第 14 页
Mr Johnson said that could be inferred from the delegate’s reference to the exclusion period of up to 3 years during which the applicant could not apply for other classes of visa.
- ¶50 · PDF 第 14 页
…it would be unsafe to assume the delegate thought more deeply beyond what was contained in the text given the hurried nature of the decision-making process…
- ¶51 · PDF 第 14 页
Mr Johnson pointed out s 195A of the Act gives the minister the power to grant a visa to a person in immigration detention.
- ¶52 · PDF 第 14 页
But I accept the possibility of being granted such a visa breaks the chain of direct causation between the cancellation decision on the one hand and removal leading to the applicant becoming a ‘behaviour concern non-citizen’.
- ¶52 · PDF 第 14 页
The power in s 195A must be exercised by the minister personally. There is no indication that the applicant applied for such a visa in this case…
- ¶53 · PDF 第 15 页
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied the delegate failed to take into account the legal consequences of the decision he was making. That means the first ground of review must fail.
- ¶55 · PDF 第 15 页
He said he had lived here for 20 years. He had a home, and a well-paying job.
- ¶56 · PDF 第 15 页
…I do not think I can go so far as to say the delegate failed to engage with the applicant’s claims about the consequences … This ground of review must fail.
- ¶57 · PDF 第 15 页
I am satisfied the delegate’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error in at least two respects. The delegate may have made the decision differently if he had not made either or both of those errors.