Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, in the content of determining whether there is another reason to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A), "the greater the degree of clarity in which a claim has been made and advanced for consideration, the greater may be the need for the Tribunal to consider the claim in clear terms"? Further, was Omar (first instance) wrongly decided?

Federal Court. In circumstances where the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was suffering from a medical or psychological condition in relation to substance abuse and addiction that required clinical treatment and supervision, did it fail to complete the exercise of its jurisdiction, as para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 99 require it to consider the applicant’s health issues relating to alcohol abuse and drug addiction, which it failed to do?

Federal Court (Full Court): Appellant's licence was terminated, after which he applied to the (1st) AAT, which affirmed original decision after a hearing. FCCA remitted the matter to the (2nd) AAT, which also carried out a hearing. 2nd AAT was reconstituted by another Member (3rd AAT) and then affirmed Board's decision. Was 3rd AAT required to afford the Appellant a further hearing? Could any findings by 1st AAT bind the 3rd? Was 3rd AAT allowed to consider 1st AAT's hearing transcript? Could AAT authoritatively determine the limits of its own authority?

Federal Court (Full Court). Should the Tribunal should have considered, in making a decision under s 501C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), "the consequences for Australia of taking a decision facially contrary to the central provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child", based on the FCAFC's decision in FAK19? Did anything in the nature of the FCA's discretionary power with respect to costs require any particular consideration of pro bono representation?

Federal Court: Was there an apprehension of bias by reason of same AAT member hearing both nomination refusal review and  corresponding 457 visa refusal review? Did Tribunal's finding that Appellant's evidence was not “persuasive or compelling” of itself amount to a finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness? Did Appellant, who was represented, waive apprehension of bias claim by not asking for the member to recuse herself? During appeal to FCA, it arose that the further nomination application had been refused. Did that mean that  apprehension of bias, if established, was not material? Did Isbester apply to this case? Was refusal to adjourn review legally unreasonable?

Federal Court: Section 430 requires AAT to provide written statement of reasons for Part 7-reviewable decisions. In Yusuf, it was held as follows about s 430: "The Tribunal is required, in setting out its reasons for decision, to set out "the findings on any material questions of fact". If it does not set out a finding on some question of fact, that will indicate that it made no finding on that matter; and that, in turn, may indicate that the Tribunal did not consider the matter to be material". Does the same principle apply to s 473EA, which requires the IAA to sets out its reasons for a decision?

Federal Court. Does the "gravity of the obligation upon the [IAA] to make a determination about whether Australia’s protection obligations w[ere] engaged" inform the determination of whether the IAA's power under s 473DD was exercised legally reasonably? Was it "open to the [IAA] to have regard to the inherent implausibility of the new information when considered in light of other information already before it for the purpose of determining whether it constitutes “credible personal information”within the meaning of s 473DD(b)(ii)"?

Federal Court. Is it an error to diminish the weight to be accorded to para 14.2(1)(b) of Direction 79 by reason of either of the sub-considerations...

Federal Court (Full Court): Applicant did not appear at FCCA hearing, which dismissed a judicial review application under r 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules. FCCA assessed application for reinstatement of the judicial review application under r 16.05(2)(a), taking into account only one aspect of potentially relevant considerations: whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. FCCA refused to reinstate. Appellant applied to the Federal Court for leave to appeal the FCCA's decision, arguing that FCCA's failure to take into account other considerations amounted to error.

Federal Court. Contrary to delegate, AAT found s 36(1C) was met and remitted matter. Minister then personally found Applicant was a danger to the Australian community and refused visa under s 501. Did Minister become "legally bound to apply the reasoning of the Tribunal (absent new circumstances having arisen) in that remitted application more broadly including in respect of his consideration of the Applicant’s representations advanced in reference to s 501". Was the AAT's decision and its reasoning "just another piece of material before him" that the Minister was entitled to place such weight on as he thought fit?