Case Law Updates

Federal Court. The Minister found as follows under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth): "While I accept that the removal and visa limitations which result from a decision to cancel [the Applicant’s] visa would likely sever his ability to return to Australia, I find that this is the intended consequence of the operation of s 501 of the Act. Accordingly, I afford this consideration neutral weight." Was that finding circular and therefore legally unreasonable?

Federal Court. In exercising the power in s 501A(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the possibility that if the permanent visa in question was not cancelled the applicant could obtain citizenship an irrelevant consideration or illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable reasoning?

Federal Court. Given the 25-month gap since the Tribunal’s decision, was it "illogical or irrational for the Minister to assume that certain facts at the date of the Tribunal’s hearing remained the same, or that the lack of evidence on certain matters at the date of the Tribunal’s decision meant that there continued to be a lack of evidence at the date of his decision"?

Federal Court. Does Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of Direction 110 recognise that a person may raise international non-refoulement obligations distinct from the statutory “protection obligations” assessed in the protection visa process?

Federal Court. Did cl 8.1.1(1)(d) of Direction 110 require the identification of a person or persons affected by the offending or the conduct?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal make jurisdictional error by not informing the non-citizen that it was proposing to make adverse and dispositive findings on matters that had been accepted in her favour before the delegate, even though she had declined an invitation by the Tribunal to attend a hearing?

Federal Court (Full Court). The appellant Minister sought to set-off a costs order made in the respondent non-citizen's favour out of a costs order made in the Minister's favour in previous court proceedings. Did the primary judge's exercise of discretion, refusing to allow the offset costs because this would discourage lawyers from acting on a conditional basis, miscarry?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) confer on the Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFCOA) jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising out of common facts, such as a claim for damages for false imprisonment, in which a writ of mandamus or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth in relation to a migration decision?

Federal Court. Is the conduct listed in cl 8.5(2) of Direction 110 exhaustive for the purposes of cl 8.5?

Federal Court. Is the risk posed by the non-citizen in question to the Australian community a mandatory relevant consideration for the Minister when exercising the discretion under s 501A(3)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?