EEF16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 645
- Sean Kikkert
- 7 days ago
- 1 min read
As an immigration barrister, I feel very protective of the best interests of children. This is a complicated area of law that has the potential to affect applicants broadly, and I believe we provide a significant service to the interests of justice when we strive to ensure that children are given a voice and that their interests are properly taken into account as a "primary consideration".
I acted on a pro bono basis in EEF16, and was very fortunate to work with a wonderful and extremely capable pro bono instructing solicitor. This was not a s 501 matter and as such there was no explicit direction for a decision-maker to treat the best interests of any affected child as a "primary consideration". Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this case, His Honour accepted our submissions that the Tribunal was obligated to consider the best interests of the applicant's child as a primary consideration (or put him on notice that the best interests of the affected child would not be a primary consideration), and yet did not properly consider and articulate these interests. In essence, the Tribunal had not clearly identified what were considered to be the children’s best interests, and the reasons for that, before going on to weigh the other considerations against those best interests. His Honour accepted that Teoh remains good law and the Court is bound by that decision
댓글