Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Did s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) allow the Tribunal to consider the "future potential costs associated with the possible incarceration of the applicant while considering the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct"?

Federal Court. Should the following italicised words be implied into s 501(6)(d)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth): "person does not pass the character test if, during the period of the visa there is a risk that the person would engage in criminal conduct in Australia"?

Federal Court. Appellant claimed in his protection visa application that he was arbitrarily detained in Ethiopia at the airport and driven to prison by a person he believed was a private driver. He claimed: he begged for driver to call his wife and tell where he was being taken to; and that the driver did so. AAT invited Appellant to speculate on why driver would have made the call. AAT itself speculated driver would not have called Appellant's wife. Was it irrational for AAT to rely on a matter the Appellant was asked to speculate about as a basis to make adverse credibility findings against him on the factual elements of which he had first-hand knowledge? Is the "adjectival description of “extreme” ... a necessary element in a finding of illogicality or irrationality"? How high is the materiality threshold?

Federal Court (Full Court). Para 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii) of Direction 99 required decision-makers to consider that crimes against women "are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government". Did para 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii) require the Tribunal to consider such crimes "very seriously"? May it be "necessary for the decision-maker to take account of facts alleged to underpin a claim that non-refoulement obligations are owed where those facts are relied upon as another basis for revocation of the cancellation decision"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can a subclass 485 visa applicant who nominated a visa stream in the visa application form seek to satisfy the criteria in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) for the other stream?

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. Would a Tribunal application to review a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be invalid and of no effect if it failed to "contain a statement of the reasons for the application", as required by s 29(1)(c) of the AAT Act, even if such a statement were subsequently provided to the Tribunal, but after the deadline for a merits review application?

Federal Court: 'What must be remembered by all who work in the Department ... is the seriousness (for them personally) of the possible contempt of the Court by removal from Australia of an applicant in circumstances where ...'

Federal Court. Cl 8(3) of Direction 79 provides: "Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa". Must decision-makers make express findings on each of those considerations? When considering under cl 14.5 the extent of impediments if Applicant were removed, AAT found it "appropriate to afford the expectations of the Australian community moderate weight in favour of non-revocation", which expectations had already been considered. Was AAT allowed to double-count those expectations?

Federal Court: Is homelessness a mandatorily irrelevant consideration for the purposes of paragraph 14.2(1)(a)(ii) of Direction 65, which makes the time a non-citizen "has spent contributing positively to the Australian community" a mandatory consideration? If not, may there be "circumstances where the manner of a decision-maker’s reference to, or application of, a non-citizen’s homelessness in Australia is so alien to, or incompatible with, the subject-matter, scope or purpose of the Act such as to infringe an implied limitation as to the decision-makers’ powers"? If so, was the present case one of those circumstances? Further, s 43(2B) of the AAT Act requires the AAT to include in its reasons “its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based”. Does it follow that everything stated in the AAT's reasons is material to its decision?