Federal Court. Is it "likely that the stronger a visa-holder’s ties to Australia, the greater the consequences of permanent exclusion of the visa-holder from Australia in the event that the visa is cancelled"? Was "at least one of the purposes served by the power conferred upon the Minister under s 501(2) of the Migration Act ... to protect the Australian public"? If so, then "having regard to the broad nature of the Minister’s discretion" and to the purpose of protecting the Australian public, was it "within the Minister’s authority to come to the view that [the Applicant] represented an unacceptable risk of harm in respect of any reoffending by him"?
Federal Court. Was AAT required to make a finding about the actual likelihood of sponsor and partner visa applicant being half-siblings? Is the combined effect of s 88C and s 88D of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) that a marriage that is valid under foreign law shall be recognised in Australia as valid, unless one of the exceptions in ss 88D(2) to (5) is engaged? While a marriage is prima facie valid pursuant to s 88G(1), do s 88D and s 23B(2) prevail? Does s 12 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) have the effect that s 88G(1) of the Marriage Act applies to an administrative decision concerning a partner visa application, despite s 353 of the Migration Act?
Federal Court (Full Court). This non-migration decision which might have consequences for migration decisions. Can it be said that a decision under s 11(6) of the CERP Rules not to exercise the "later time" discretion, made in the context of a decision that a person is not entitled to a jobkeeper payment because they did not have an ABN on 12 March 2020, does not fall within s 13(2)(a) of the CERP Act? If so, did s 43 of the AAT Act nevertheless give the Tribunal the power to exercise the "later time" discretion?
Federal Court (Full Court). Do the same principles of statutory interpretation apply to the interpretation of a Ministerial direction? Should cl 14.4(1) of Direction No 79 be interpreted literally? Was it for the Tribunal to come to its own view as to the materiality of its own errors?
Federal Court. DoesWaterford apply to legal advice sought to be covered by a s 438 certificate? Does s 418 expressly or by necessary implication abrogate legal professional privilege (LPP)? Did s 418(3) require the Secretary to provide to the Tribunal documents attracting legal professional privilege? Should a waiver of LPP be imputed to the Minister here? Was the fact that the Secretary considered the documents containing legal advice relevant to the review determinative of the question whether they were relevant pursuant to s 418(3)?
Federal Court. In order for the Minister to personally made a decision under s 501CA(4), must he be "briefed with an accurate and sufficient summary of the matters raised by the representations or ... undertake the consideration of the representations personally"? Can it be inferred from the form of the reasons (i.e. circling 1 of 3 options) that they were the means by which the Minister was briefed, with the result that "the matters that are known to the Minister are only those matters expressed in the reasons"?
Federal Court. The Appellants made invalid protection visa applications and then validly applied for visas subclass 785. Is the question of whether the Appellants abandoned a claim for the purpose of the valid visa applications a matter of fact? Did they abandon that claim? Was MZYQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship  FCA 948 analogous to the facts of the present case?
Federal Court (FCA). Can a court grant mandamus by way of interlocutory relief? Does the FCA have jurisdiction or power to grant mandamus compelling...
Federal Court (Full Court). Is s 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) which, among other things, requires courts to "do all things necessary to ensure that the matter [the subject of a certificate under s 39B(2)] is not disclosed to any person other than a member of the court as constituted for the purposes of the [judicial review] proceeding" brought under s 44, constitutionally valid?
Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal have the power, in reviewing a refusal to grant the Respondent a SHEV, to determine whether the Minister had made a jurisdictional error in granting him a temporary safe haven visa under s 195A? Is it an implied condition that the state of mind called for by s 195A, namely that the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to grant the visa, be formed on the basis of a correct understanding of the law?