Background
IEG25, an unauthorised maritime arrival detained at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, was scheduled for involuntary removal to Sri Lanka on 22 September 2026. An earlier removal attempt on 11 September was aborted after he attempted suicide at the airport. He was hospitalised for two days and later returned to detention.
He urgently sought an interlocutory injunction. His arguments included that he should instead be sent to a regional processing country, that unresolved visa-related requests prevented removal, and that removal was not reasonably practicable because he was medically unfit to travel.
The Court’s Holding
Perram J granted an injunction restraining the respondents from involuntarily removing IEG25 to Sri Lanka until final determination of the consolidated proceedings. The Court rejected the first two grounds: Nauru had advised that it would not accept him, engaging s 198AG of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and neither an outstanding bridging-visa application nor an unconsidered request for ministerial intervention displaced the removal duty.
However, the Court held that IEG25 had a reasonably arguable case that removal was not “reasonably practicable” under s 198. Recent High Court authority made it arguable that reasonable practicability was an objective, jurisdictional fact. The hospital material supported an arguable case that an attempted removal created a serious suicide risk, while the later fitness-to-travel assessment had been completed by a nurse who had not examined him and noted no doctor had seen him since February.
Key Takeaways
- An outstanding bridging-visa application does not itself prevent removal under s 198(5).
- An unconsidered request for ministerial intervention is irrelevant to removal unless the Minister decides to consider the request.
- Medical unfitness, including a material suicide risk connected to removal, can make removal objectively not reasonably practicable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that removal obligations do not eliminate judicial scrutiny where there is an arguable, evidence-based case that removal cannot safely and practically occur. The Court treated the risk that the applicant might die as outweighing administrative disruption, detention costs and the need to reschedule removal.