Case Law Updates

Federal Circuit Court. Can a document that itself is genuine meet the definition of a 'bogus document' by having been fraudulently obtained?

Federal Court. Do the words “an applicant…for a visa of a prescribed kind” in s 140GB(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) qualify a visa applicant, not the nomination? Was a nomination of a visa applicant made under s 140GB(1)(b)? Was a nomination for a subclass 482 visa capable of satisfying cl 457.223(4)(a)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 198AH(1A) create jurisdictional facts, in the sense of facts that a court can and should determine for itself? In determining pursuant to s 198AH(1A)(c) whether a transitory person "no longer needs to be in Australia for the temporary purpose", should the temporary purpose merely reflect the statutory language of the now repealed s 198C, namely being brought to Australia for "the temporary purpose of medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment", or should the purpose be more specifically identified?

Federal Court. DFQ17 held that a visa refusal notification letter must clearly convey the deadline for an application for merits review in order to comply with s 66(2)(d)(ii). Here, the following sentence was found under the heading "Registries of the [AAT]": "As this letter was given to you by hand, you are taken to have received it when it was handed to you". Did the place of that sentence render the notification unclear? The letter also read: "As you are in immigration detention, the prescribed timeframe commences on the day on which you were notified of this decision, and ends at the end of seven working days (beginning with the first working day that occurs on or after that day)". Did the latter sentence precisely track reg 4.31(1)?

High Court. Should statutory provisions be interpreted, so far as possible, to be consistent with international law, particularly where a provision seeks to give effect to matters of international law? Is the primary object of statutory construction to "construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all the provisions of the statute"?

Federal Court (Full Court). The power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) can be exercised in the circumstances described in s 501CA(1), which provides as follows: "This section applies if the Minister makes a decision ... under subsection 501(3A)" (emphasis added). If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) by a delegate, does that mean that a decision cannot be made under s 501CA(4)?

Federal Court. Under s 473CB(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), where a protection visa refusal is referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA), the Secretary must give the IAA "material provided" by the visa applicant to the Department. For the purpose of that provision: are digital images “material”; did the Appellant “provide” the delegate with a digital image by showing it to the delegate on his phone; must the material be given to the IAA even if it is not in the Secretary’s possession or control? We summarises those and many other questions.

Federal Court. Is a child a party to migration judicial review proceedings only if a person is appointed their litigation representative?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that "the discretion resides in the Tribunal under s 438(3)(b) [of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] insofar as there is a valid certificate, and that there is no obligation under s 424AA, s 424A or s 425 to disclose to the appellant the information nor any matter contained in the document “unless the discretion is affirmatively exercised”"?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. In reviewing a refusal to grant a student visa to an Indian national who sought to study cookery in Australia, the AAT said at the hearing: "I know that 99% of the cooks in India don’t come here and study". Was the AAT's decision affected by apprehended bias?