Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Must the power in s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? May satisfaction of the preconditions to the exercise of the power in s 501BA arise by consideration of matters that have arisen after the s 501CA decision?

Mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) requires that (a) the non-citizen not pass the character test and (b) be serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time of cancellation. Federal Court: it is irrelevant when the sentence that enlivens s 501(3A)(a) is imposed or completed; the sentence enlivening s 501(3A)(a) does not need to be the same sentence enlivening s 501(3A)(b)

High Court (single Justice). Can it be said that, although "a separate visa was granted to each of the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs, nevertheless the Second and Third Plaintiffs were each a "holder" of the Protection visa granted to the First Plaintiff"? Was r 2.55 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a prescribed method for the giving of a NOICC under s 119(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court: This decision is extremely important to subclass 482 (TSS) visa applicants. Although it concerned a subclass 457 visa application, it involved the interpretation of a critical provision that is identical to cl 482.212(3). According to this decision, ANZSCO was not the only guide that could be used to determine the "skills, qualifications and employment background" that were necessary for the applicant to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. We explain how practitioners can use this decision to their clients' advantage.

Federal Court. Delegate refused second stage partner visa (subclass 100) on the basis of end of relationship. On review at AAT, Appellant made family violence claim. At what point did the requirement to prove the existence of a genuine relationship end? Secretary: issued two s 375A certificates which covered documents that were capable of proving that relationship was genuine; revoked 1 of those certificates; and issued a s 376 certificate. In circumstances where Minister defended a denial of procedural fairness by successfully claiming at FCCA public interest immunity in respect of a document covered by an undisclosed certificate, is the onus to prove that, had the Tribunal not failed to disclose the s 376 certificate, it could have arrived at a different decision, shifted from Minister to Appellant?

High Court: Should an appellate court make its own finding of fact only where the trial judge's finding of fact was "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling inferences"? Whatever the answer is, it arguably applies to migration matters.

Federal Court. Does use of the word “means” in cl 4(1) of Direction 110 limit the definition of “family violence” to the two types of conduct as described, namely conduct that "coerces or controls a member of the person’s family" or "causes the family member to be fearful"?

Federal Court (FCA). Is the FCA bound by the parties' agreement on the content of the law or facts? If the FCA declares that the Applicant is not an alien within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution, can the Applicant be removed from Australia under s 198 or detained under s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Should the FCA, in the form of a declaration, "lay down a set of rules or prescriptions to be adopted in any potential (or actual) future litigation, which are intended to control the circumstances in which a non-citizen could successfully contend she or he is an Aboriginal Australian"?

Federal Court. Was a visa validly granted because it was granted in accordance with the conclusions of a court, despite the fact that those conclusions were later on overturned? Must the operation of s 67(4) be read subject to the proviso that an invalid granting of a visa, even if recorded, is of no effect? Is it necessary to read into s 172(1)(c) the requirement that the granting of a substantive visa be a valid exercise of power?

Federal Court. Was the Applicant inhibited in his task of seeking judicial review within the 35-day statutory deadline, because the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal followed 21 days after the decision was made? Is it for the Court to set to one side a clearly expressed conclusion by the Tribunal on the basis that it may be a mistake?