Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). "Para 14.1(3) of Direction 79 stated that claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by a former visa holder in a revocation request "or can be clear from the facts of the case". Did Direction 79 impose an obligation on the AAT to recognise and understand that a non-refoulement claim which, if accepted, would satisfy s 36 of Act, arose so as to evaluate whether to defer an assessment of the claim to a visa application process, instead of treating itself as obliged to defer that assessment? If so, did that obligation include such a claim that clearly or squarely arose from the material?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "where the likelihood of different categories of prospective offending or different degrees of prospective harm might be thought to vary, the task required by cl 13.1.2(1) may only sensibly be completed by a decision-maker differentiating the risk in relation to each category"?

Federal Court. Should Minister have put Applicant on notice he would reconsider delegate's findings? Does Direction 79: treat visa refusals as inappropriate in a case where the “character concerns” of the visa applicant present no risk to the Australian community; allow decision-makers to treat the expectations of the Australian community as the decisive consideration? Are those expectations the Minister's conception of what such expectations are? Is a reasonable time to the making of a decision implied into ss 65 or 501? If so, how is it calculated? Was a delay of more than 3 years unreasonable? If so, did detention become unlawful from the time of implied deadline onwards?

Federal Court. Does the inclusion of a specific procedural fairness requirement into para 8.2(2)(b) of Direction 99 require something more or something different than usual procedural fairness under 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If so, what is that "something more"?

Federal Court: 'if the evidentiary requirements were satisfied simply by a statutory declaration made by [a nurse], who is a non-treating [nurse], the words [under IMMI 12/116] in relation to treatment would be otiose'

Federal Court: As discussed in a previous article, a judge of the FCA had echoed the writer's concerns about the fact that, sometimes, the Minister inadvertently labels merits review as materiality test considerations. With respect, those concerns have just been echoed by another judge of the FCA.

Federal Court. Does s 423A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) codify the circumstances in which the Tribunal may draw an unfavourable inference?

Federal Court (Full Court). For the purpose of identifying jurisdictional error, are ex tempore reasons for judgement delivered by the Federal Circuit Court to be "scrutinised narrowly and with an eye for error"? Can it be said that "statements may be made in reasons which, in isolation, appear to be expressed at the level of principle but, in fact, have been applied in a more nuanced and fact-specific context"?

High Court. Paragraph (d) of the definition of "behaviour concern non-citizen" under s 5(1) provided as follows: "a non-citizen who ... has been removed or deported from Australia or removed or deported from another country". Does that definition imply removal effected in accordance with Div 8 of Pt 2 of the Act or lawfully or validly removed? Can the legal acts referred to in paras (a) to (c) "be quashed or reversed by a court with the result that there is no decision within the meaning of paras (a) to (c)"?

Federal Court. Was it the Respondent, not the Hon Karen Andrews MP (the now former Minister), who had the responsibility to answer the interrogatories administered by the Registrar? Could Ms Andrews be compelled under Part 21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to answer the interrogatories? Was Ms Andrews authorised under r 21.04(1) of the Rules to make an affidavit verifying her answers? Could Ms Andrews be compelled to attend before the court or a registrar for oral interrogation under r 21.05(b) of the Rules?