Case Law Updates

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. In DFQ17 and BMY18, FCAFC held that the notification letters under s 66 in those cases were invalid, as they did not "clearly convey" the deadlines for the respective merits review applications. Must a notification be "piecemeal, entirely obscure and essentially incomprehensible" in order to be invalid? Here, a delegate cancelled the Appellant's visa and notified him as follows under the heading "Review rights": "An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within [7] working days after you are taken to have received this letter... As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted". Did the above notice clearly convey the statutory deadline?

Federal Court. In determining that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the decision because of the invalidity of the application, was there a "decision of the Tribunal under section 415" of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that the Minister had the power under s 417 to substitute for the decision of the Tribunal?

Federal Court. Does family violence include belittling, intimidating, frightening, or similar conduct directed to the person claiming to be the victim of domestic violence? Can it be said that, instead of being obliged to accept the evidence that was before her, the independent expert was required to make her own, independent assessment as to whether or not the appellant was a victim of relevant family violence?

Federal Court: s 36(3) of Migration Act 1958 provides that Australia is taken not to have protection obligations if non-citizen "has not taken" all possible steps to enter & reside in any other country apart from Australia and the country where they fear persecution. AAT found that Indian Appellant had well-founded fear of persecution in India, but not Nepal. Appellant argued to AAT that, at the TOD of, he could only enter Nepal through India. Was AAT required to consider whether Appellant could or would prospectively: voluntarily return to Nepal; be removed from Australia to India? Or was AAT required to focus instead only on whether, by the TOD, Appellant had taken all possible steps to enter & reside in Nepal?

Federal Court: although legal unreasonableness is not amenable to fixed formulae, this decision contains an interesting description: 'A conclusion, whether stated definitively or arising as a matter of generalisation ... , that is inherently inconsistent with another conclusion (in the sense that at least one of them must be wrong) is one that is attended by irrationality or illogicality of the extreme kind to which the authorities refer'.

Federal Court. The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) pointed to the deadline for seeking merits review falling on a Saturday, although the effect of s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (AIA) was to extend it until the following Monday. By being silent on the effect of s 36(2) of the AIA, did the letter notifying of a non-revocation decision fail to state the deadline, with the result that the Tribunal application lodged years later was not late?

Federal Court. The Applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival, made a request for Ministerial intervention under s 46A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Before determining that request, the Applicant was told that he would be removed from Australia. In an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain his removal, did the balance of convenience favour the respondents because removal would frustrate the duty under s 198?

Federal Court (FCA). Was the Minister allowed to begin his consideration of the matter prior to the FCA's consent orders concerning a decision of a previous Minister being finalised? Was it "inherently unlikely" that the Minister would consider the matter until called on to make a decision, as this would be inefficient for a busy Minister? Can a Jones v Dunkel inference be drawn if the Minister fails to give evidence personally?

Federal Court. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s 198(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?