Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Can it be said in the context of s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that "a court determining an application for extension of time commits jurisdictional error whenever it omits to recite and deal with each explanation for delay"? Does the requirement that an error be material in order to be a jurisdictional error, as identified in Hossain, apply to a decision of the Federal Circuit Court under s 477(2) as much as it does to an administrative decision maker?

Federal Court. The Applicant was an NZYQ-affected BVR holder. Was it "not necessarily irrational or illogical to consider the provisions of the Direction on the basis that cancellation of the applicant's Global Special Humanitarian visa would remove his entitlement to stay in Australia thereby requiring his removal, provided the Tribunal also separately and sufficiently brought to account the additional consideration relevant to the applicant, namely that, in all likelihood, he would remain in Australia under different visa arrangements"?

Federal Court. The Tribunal obtained the sponsor’s movements record after the hearing and took that evidence into account in affirming the decision without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard about the evidence of the sponsor’s travel and the couple’s time apart in relation to whether compelling reasons existed. The movement records had a direct bearing on the veracity of the appellant’s "compelling reasons" claim. Did that constitute a failure to comply with ss 359A or 360 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Was it an irrelevant consideration for the Tribunal to take into account the Appellant's future intentions when determining whether he intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily pursuant to cl 500.212(a)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Do the words 'counterfeit document' in the definition of a 'bogus document' in s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) include "a document that is authentic in the sense that its provenance as a document is genuine but contains information that is not true"?

Federal Court. For the purposes of s 423A, is a “claim” to be equated with a singular factual allegation? Were the “clear particulars” the Tribunal was obliged to provide to the appellants under s 424A “clear particulars” of the "information that the Tribunal considered rightly or wrongly would be a reason or part of a reason for affirming the decision under review"?

High Court (single Justice). In determining whether to grant the plaintiff a time extension to file his judicial review application, does he disclose an arguable basis for relief in arguing that the delegate made an error in treating a Code 35 NPC as not satisfying the request?

Federal Court. If any part of the decision on the application for a protection visa relied upon ss 5H(2)(c) or 36(2C)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), must review be sought in the General Division of the Tribunal? If so, was the General Division's jurisdiction confined to reviewing the decision to refuse the application for a protection visa to the extent that reliance was placed by the decision-maker upon those provisions?

Federal Court: The AAT received 2 non-disclosure certificates under s 375A, but only disclosed the existence of the first. The second certificate referred to the MRT, although the MRT had already amalgamated into the AAT. The appellant argue, among other things, that had he known about the existence of the second certificate, he could have argued: that it was invalid as it referred to the abolished MRT; that even if it were valid, he could have argued for a favourable discretion to disclose the content covered by it. Does a discretion really exist?

Federal Court. Were the individual subjects of the applicant’s Graduate Diploma in Business capable of being considered by the Tribunal as specifically relevant to the applicant’s nominated occupation of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Business Analyst (ANZSCO Code 261111), with the result that the Tribunal could have considered the Diploma as 'closely related' to that occupation under cl 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?