Can a decision be made twice under s 501(2) on the same facts?
Once a decision is made to cancel a visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 based on certain factual circumstances, can a further decision be made under the same provision, based on the same factual circumstances?
RMA not allowed to speak, thus no waiver?
Federal Court. Can it be said that, "since the appellant’s migration agent was told in no uncertain terms during the [Tribunal] review hearing that she was not entitled to speak, there can be no objection to upholding [a ground of review of apprehension of bias] on the basis of waiver"?
Principles of open justice
High Court. Can it be said that, while "the broad principle is that the Courts ... must ... administer justice in public", the exceptions to this broad principle are "themselves the outcome of a yet more fundamental principle that the chief object of Courts of justice must be to secure that justice is done"?
Can ‘family violence’ in Direction 99 have different meanings?
Federal Court. Does the phrase 'family violence' in Direction 99 have different meanings depending on the context in which it appears? Was the applicant's conduct relevant to paras 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.5 of Direction 99 only capable of weighing against him?
Order of processing correlated applications
Federal Court (Full Court): ordinarily, a subclass 820 visa application will be decided first and the 801 second. However, decision makers can reverse that order in some circumstances; perhaps that means that a TSS visa can be refused before nomination is processed in some circumstances, thus denying review rights to visa applicants
MARA decision: “all clients” dealt with by RMAs?
If an RMA's website advertised that "your case will be represented and advocated only by [an RMA] throughout the entire application process", but a client was not dealt with by an RMA, was that advertisement, combined with other factors, misleading even if the non-RMA dealing with that client was located overseas?
BAL19 called into question again
Federal Court. Does a Class BF Transitional (Permanent) Visa satisfy the definition of a “protection visa” in s 48A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Was BAL19, which held that s 501(1) did not apply to protection visas, wrongly decided?
AAT not required to consider claim put to DHA but not to AAT
Federal Court (Full Court): 'the Tribunal is only required to consider matters that are raised by argument, or which clearly emerge from the materials. That is equally so in relation [to] matters advanced in proceedings before the Tribunal involving reviews of decisions under s 501CA(4)' of the Migration Act 1958 (non-revocation of visa cancellation)
ADJR Act: discretion under s 10(2)(b)(ii)
Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "for the purposes of the discretion under s 10(2)(b)(ii) [of the ADJR Act], the availability of a full merits review on a de novo basis can constitute “adequate provision” for review and entitle the Court to refuse relief in its discretion"? If so, is the position "perhaps even stronger here where the appellant potentially had available to him two tiers of review in the AAT"?
Low tolerance of criminal conduct: a factual finding?
Federal Court. In deciding under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, the Minister found that "Australia has a low tolerance of criminal conduct for people…who have been participating in, and contributing to, the community only for a short period". Should that finding "be understood as a concrete factual finding reflective of some impossible synthesis or amalgamation of the views held collectively by the Australian community"?