How can foreign citizenship be determined?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "a conclusion as to a person’s citizenship might be made administratively without any passport or other identity documents, just on the basis of an apparently truthful statement by the person (or another, perhaps a parent) as to their place of birth and confirmation by an Australian diplomatic or other source that persons so born acquire that country’s citizenship"?

Sharing a bed, thus not merely sharing a house?

Federal Court. Could the fact that there was only one bedroom in the couple's residence be ignored by the Tribunal? If the couple was sharing a bed, did this necessarily militate "strongly against the proposition that they were merely sharing a house"? Is what the decision in He has to say about the correct approach to r 1.15A(3) about whether a person is a spouse directly applicable to the position under r 1.09A(3) for the purpose of determining whether a person is a de facto partner?

Delay justified while special leave application is decided?

Federal Court. Should the FCA grant peremptory mandamus, compelling the Minister to grant the Appellant a SHEV? Is consideration of the "national interest" under cl 790.227 "limited to whether or not the appellant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community"? May the Minister justify delay where he or she is exhausting his or her rights of appellate review, including by applying to the High Court for special leave to appeal from the FCAFC's decision?

Section 36B of the Citizenship Act invalid?

High Court. Is s 36B of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) invalid because it is not supported by a head of Commonwealth legislative power or because it reposes in the Minister for Home Affairs the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt?

Trading at a loss fatal to rr 5.19(5)(n) or (9)(g)?

Federal Court. For the purpose of the old version of r 5.19(3)(d)(i), now arguably reflected in rr 5.19(5)(n) and (9)(g) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), does the circumstance that a nominator "has either generated modest profits or indeed has traded at a loss in any year or years" of itself "give rise to a conclusion that the person (nominee) will not be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least two years, [the nominator] having contended that it would so employ the nominee and having put material before the Tribunal to that effect"?

Section 25(1) of Citizenship Act: a discretion?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, although s 25(1) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provided that the Minister "may" cancel an approval of citizenship (if, for instance, the applicant was not of good character), the power under that provision was not discretionary?

Claim based on need to support family more likely to clearly emerge?

Federal Court. Can it be said that a protection "claim based on the need to support one’s family is more likely to “clearly emerge” from the material given the fundamental relevance of the matter in human terms"? Does the "review material" before the Immigration Assessment Authority include the delegate's decision?

Not liable to s 189 detention if not an alien?

High Court. Can it be said that a non‑citizen who does not have a visa that is in effect is not liable to detention under s 189(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) if they are not an alien? Can it be said that, "what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to be an unlawful non‑citizen must be judged against what was known or reasonably capable of being known at the relevant time"? In other words, can it be said that what constitutes reasonable grounds cannot be invalid ab initio?

Non-applicability of Ministerial Direction a mandatory consideration?

Federal Court. Was the Minister “required to consider the “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences” of the s 501(3) cancellation decision he was contemplating”? If so, was the non-applicability of the relevant ministerial direction (Direction No. 79) a “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequence” of the Minister’s s 501(3) decision that the Minister ought to have considered”?

Direction 90: is order of factors relevant?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal permitted for the purpose of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to consider the combined influence of cll 9.4.1(2)(a) and (b) of Direction 90 as constituent parts of the “other ties” consideration in cl 9.4.1(2) and apply the abating effect under cl 9.4.1(2)(a)(i) to that consolidated whole?

Copyrighted Image

error: Content is protected !!