Case Law Updates

Federal Court: Did the FCCA inadvertently deny the Appellant procedural fairness by, among other things, saying to him that "you can't give [the FCCA] anything new"? The answered turned on what "anything new" meant in the circumstances.

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. In the context of assessing cl 500.212 (GTE), are merits review applicants necessarily on notice of the relevance of the matters set out in Direction 69 due to the very fact that they are so set out? Was it legally unreasonable for the AAT to treat what it found to be false statements made in a previous tourist visa application made by the Appellant as probative of an intention to stay in Australia beyond the conclusion of the student visa?

Federal Court. In determining non-revocation request under s 501CA(4), AAT had to consider Direction 79, para 14.5(1) of which provided AAT had to consider the "extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country)...". Does para 14.5(1) require decision-makers to "draw a comparison between the welfare systems in Australia and [the non-citizen's home country]"? Is para 14.5(1) to be applied "solely by reference to a generic citizen of the relevant home country, the characteristics of whom are uninfluenced by the particular non-citizen’s personal circumstances"?

Federal Court. Should the Court withhold the grant of constitutional relief, for instance on the basis that the applicant’s case before the Minister was founded on the premise that Al-Kateb correctly represented the law and that the Minister should apply such law in making his decision, even though NZYQ subsequently overruled Al-Kateb?

Federal Court (Full Court): AAT did to disclose existence of a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 438(1)(b), but did not take the information covered by it, which related to the Appellant's claim for protection, into consideration. AAT found that: 1) Appellant did not have a well-founded fear of prosecution nor satisfied the complementary protection provisions; 2) and, in any event, Appellant could reasonably relocate to safe areas of his country, meaning that he was not owed protection obligations. If the first finding was erroneous, was that error material/jurisdictional?

Federal Court: AAT found: Kenyan authorities did not discriminate against people with mental illness, as they did not recognise those types of illness; rather, the authorities would, through a law of general application, take action against the Appellant on the basis of his (potentially criminal) erratic behaviour; thus, AAT found that he would not be discriminated against. Is a foreign law of general application capable of being implemented in a discriminatory manner? If so, can that amount to persecution? Does persecution require a subjective element of enmity or malignity?

Federal Court. Does s 131 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) confer "power to revoke the cancellation of a visa even where the visa would have ceased to be in effect because the specified period during which the visa permitted its holder to travel to, enter and remain in Australia has ended"? Or rather, if revocation occurs after the original expiry date, is the restored visa 'stillborn'?

Section 312A requires RMAs to notify DHA if they are giving someone immigration assistance. MARA found RMA: owned a few businesses and nominated some employees under those businesses; listed himself as an authorised recipient, instead of RMA, in some of the nomination applications. In determining whether a file note provided to the MARA in response to a s 308 notice was created retrospectively just for the purpose of a MARA investigation, can MARA look at the metadata of the file note?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the AAT’s exercise of discretion under s359C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) miscarried and through the failure to exercise the discretion properly the AAT failed to conduct a proper review under Part V of that Act"? Can it be said that the "AAT was unreasonable and/or that the AAT failed to conduct a proper review under Part V of the Migration Act"?