Case Law Updates

Federal Court: s 425 required AAT to invite Appellant to appear before it to "give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review". AAT invited Appellant to a hearing in relation to the review of the delegate's decision to refuse him a protection visa. At the hearing, AAT put it to Appellant that there was a trend after 2013 of reduction of violence in the Appellant's country, based on some reports. Appellant had opportunity to comment. AAT's decision record relied on a subsequent report (2016 DFAT report) which confirmed that trend, but of which Appellant was not put on notice. Was the 2016 DFAT report an "issue" arising in relation to the decision under review or was it merely a factual matter going to that issue? Should AAT have convened a second hearing?

Can it be said that, whether an applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student is reached by reason only of the particular criteria in cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)? Do the words in cl 500.212(a) concern only with how long a visa applicant intends to stay in Australia? In assessing whether an applicant "is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student", must applicants satisfy each of cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)? Are some of the factors in Direction No 69 also relevant to cl 500.212(c)? Did the group introduction process at the start of the Tribunal hearing amount to a denial of procedural fairness? Should a litigant be expected to put on an appeal before being entitled to settled reasons from the court below?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the Tribunal’s place in an administrative decision-making continuum necessarily mean that "the issues which emerge for its consideration will be shaped not just by the criteria specified in or with respect to the statutory power it is exercising afresh but also by the way in which those issues have been developed at anterior stages of the continuum"?

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. Was it irrational or legally unreasonable for the Tribunal not to identify for the purpose of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a rational or intelligible basis for not giving any weight to the applicant’s representations as to her family ties in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa?

Federal Court: Delegate refused to grant a primary applicant child and his/her secondary applicant parents a protection visa. AAT then found there was no real risk that the child would suffer significant harm, on the following basis: "I find that the effects of not having his birth registered and not being able to access citizenship documentation will thus be significantly offset by having two parents to care for him and the financial support of his father". Did AAT make a jurisdictional error by finding that the risk of harm to the child could be offset by the parents' financial support?

High Court. Is the existence of a duty to afford procedural fairness a question of statutory interpretation? Is there a "strong" common law presumption, "generally applicable to any statutory power the exercise of which is capable of having an adverse effect on legally recognised rights or interests, that the exercise of the power is impliedly conditioned on the observance of procedural fairness"?

Federal Court (Full Court) extends the High Court's materiality test in Hossain: 'the requirement of materiality for there to be jurisdictional error applies to a court as much as it does to an administrative decision-maker'

Federal Court. Court ordered that Minister cease to detain the applicant at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation centre (MITA) due to the risk of covid-19 entering the MITA and then infecting the applicant. In practical terms, this means Minister will need to place applicant at a different detention centre.

Federal Court. The appellant answered a question in a student visa application form, indicating he had never had previous visa refusals. In reality, he had had student visa refusals. Was it unnecessary for the Tribunal to explain in any detail the basis upon which it considered the impugned answer was relevant to cl 500.212 (GTE criterion)? Did PIC 4020(5)(b) require determination of whether cl 500.212 was satisfied? May an applicant's provision of such false or misleading information be a 'relevant matter' within the meaning of cl 500.212(c)?