Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court): A person fails the character test under s 501(6)(b) if they have been a member of, or have been associated with, a group, organisation or person that has been involved in criminal conduct. Does the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 set up a presumption that a piece of legislation that is silent about its territorial operation, as is the case with s 501(6)(b), only applies within Australia? If so, does the object of the Migration Act 1958 rebut that presumption?

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. Can the test concerning the materiality of an error be expressed in the following way: "absent a Court being satisfied that, but for the breach, there is a reasonable possibility that different outcome could have been reached by a decision maker, a failure to accord natural justice will not be jurisdictional error"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the obligation under s 39(1) of the AAT Act to ensure procedural fairness higher than that provided by the common law? Must the content of a “reasonable opportunity” in s 39(1) of the AAT Act be construed in light of the terms of s 500(6L) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court: 'I do not think that [deciding to cancel a visa under s 501(3) rather than s 501(2)] is a “decision” which is subject to judicial review'

Federal Court. Must there be something exceptional about that which is said to be 'in the national interest' under s 501BA(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Under s 473CB(1)(b), the Secretary must give the IAA "material provided by the referred applicant to the person making the decision before the decision was made". If a protection visa applicant provided material to a delegate but another delegate refused to grant the visa, can it be said that the material was not given "to the person making the decision"? If the material was given to a delegate by the applicant's representative, can it be said that it was not given by the "referred applicant"? With respect, does this Federal Court decision stand in contrast with the High Court's majority judgement in SZMTA?

Federal Court. Should Direction 65 be read down to be consistent with the Family Law Act 1975? Was AAT required to "give weight to a right, value or interest recognised by statute, international instrument or the common law"? Is Direction 65 inconsistent with that Act? Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child inform the interpretation of paras 13(2)(b), 13.2(1) and 13.2(4) of Direction 65? Is Direction 65 delegated legislation? If not, is it anyway sensible to assume it intended to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law? Is Direction 65 inconsistent with the common law principle of parental responsibility?

If an RMA's website advertised that "your case will be represented and advocated only by [an RMA] throughout the entire application process", but a client was not dealt with by an RMA, was that advertisement, combined with other factors, misleading even if the non-RMA dealing with that client was located overseas?

Federal Court. Minister sent an invalid invitation under s 501CA(3) to make representations seeking revocation of visa cancellation. Minister then sent an identical invalid invitation weeks later. Applicant made representations within the legislative timeframe calculated by reference to the date of the second, but not the first, invitation. Minister treated the representation as valid and made a decision under s 501CA(4), but challenged representation's validity before the Tribunal. Was the Tribunal allowed to determine whether it had jurisdiction by questioning whether the Minister's decision was valid?