Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Is an address given on an incoming passenger card given for the purpose of s 52(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Was it open to the Minister to treat an address given for the purpose of s 52(3A) as the "person's last residential address ... known to the Minister" within the meaning of r 2.55(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "any violation of Australia’s international obligations is capable of bearing upon Australia’s national interest"? If so, does it follow that, "in evaluating the national interest, each and every decision-maker, irrespective of the statutory and factual context, had to consider any violation of Australia’s international obligations as part of the consideration of the national interest"?

Federal Court. Does the AAT Act "require the representative to be independent of the applicant or to provide objective advice or guidance to the applicant"? Can it be said that "to conduct a review that is fair, just and economical does not require the necessary preclusion of a person who is also a witness from acting as a representative provided that by a representative so acting, the applicant is not deprived of a fair opportunity to present his or her case"?

Federal Court. AAT set aside delegate's decision to refuse protection visa and granted Respondent a visa. Minister applied to FCA for judicial review, claiming AAT had no jurisdiction to grant the visa. Minister also made interlocutory application for matter to be expedited and kept Respondent in detention despite visa grant. Respondent made interlocutory application for his immediate release, on the basis that he was being unlawfully detained. Should FCA expedite the hearing of the Minister's judicial review application? Did FCA have jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's interlocutory application for release? Did FCA have the power to issue writ of habeas corpus? Was Respondent unlawfully detained after Tribunal granted him a visa?

Federal Court: 86-year-old UK national Appellant had visa mandatorily cancelled and applied for a protection visa, claiming he had several health conditions, including a major depressive disorder. He provided a medical letter stating that, if returned to the UK, he was at high risk of suicide. He claimed he was owed complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) in that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed, he would suffer significant harm by being arbitrarily deprived of his life pursuant to s 36(2A)(a). Is s 36(2A)(a) restricted to the risk of being deprived of life by a third party? If so and if the UK did not prevent his suicide, would that constitute arbitrary deprivation of life? If so, did the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in not assessing what would be the UK’s response to the risk of suicide?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "if it is common ground between parties that a particular fact is so, then it is a denial of procedural fairness for an administrator, for example, the Tribunal, to depart from that position without giving each party an opportunity to make submissions on that subject; in other words, ambushing by a decision-maker can amount to jurisdictional error"?

Federal Court. Paragraph 34(3)(b) of Citizenship Act 2007 provided citizenship revocation could not occur if "the Minister is satisfied that the person would, if the Minister were to revoke the person's Australian citizenship, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country". Is the question whether Applicant would become “a person who is not a national or citizen of any country” a jurisdictional fact, so that the Court can and should answer that question for itself? Is s 34(3)(b) a limitation upon, as opposed to a precondition for, the exercise of the power to revoke citizenship?

Federal Court. Does the word "may" in s 501CA(4) give decision-makers a residual discretion to refuse to revoke cancellation even if there is "another reason" to revoke? Could Applicant's actions negate the conclusion that revocation is in the best interests of his children or reduce the weight to be placed on those interests? How should the tension between DNQ18 and PQSM regarding the materiality test be resolved? If AAT made error, was error material (and thus jurisdictional)?

High Court. Does responsibility for ensuring an absence of bias, whether actual or apprehended, ultimately lie with a court as an institution and not merely with a member of that court whose impartiality might be called into question? Was there a reasonable apprehension of bias in circumstances where one of the members of the Full Court of the Federal Court hearing a migration-related appeal had appeared for the Crown against the appellant in criminal proceedings?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "in conducting a review of a non-revocation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal must give meaningful consideration to a clearly articulated and substantial or significant representation concerning the risk of harm to the former visa holder if returned to his country of nationality independently of a claim concerning Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations, and that a failure to do so may give rise to jurisdictional error"?