Case Law Updates

Federal Court: Tribunal can correct errors in its written statement of reasons in the General Division, but only if they are 'obvious', immaterial errors

Federal Court. Can it be said that, as the visa was cancelled on the basis that the applicant failed the character test arising from the application of the objective standard that he has “a substantial criminal record” in s 501(6)(a), "the subjective standard referred to in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(iii) does not and cannot apply"? Is what was said in an earlier judgment involving the same applicant and Minister "material" before the Tribunal on which it could base its findings?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the Minister have a residual discretion to determine whether or not to revoke a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) if satisfied of either s 501CA(4)(a) or (b) are satisfied? Does the 'another reason' aspect of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) require that the other reason that carry "sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Minister entrusted with the responsibility to consider whether to revoke the visa cancellation that the decision should be revoked"?

Federal Circuit Court. Can a document that itself is genuine meet the definition of a 'bogus document' by having been fraudulently obtained?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that "s 501G(1) when read with reg 5.02, does not state that the document must be given by a method prescribed for the purpose of giving documents to a person in immigration detention, and the Minister may, by operation of s 494A(1), give the document to a person by any method that he or she considers appropriate"?

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. May there "be overlap between a failure to afford an opportunity to be heard, and a reasonable apprehension of bias on the ground of pre-judgment, because the former may give rise to the latter"?

Federal Circuit Court. Section 5F(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided that the prospective partner visa applicant and her sponsor must "have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others". Did s 5F(1)(b) require the visa applicant and sponsor to manifest an affection for each other?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Tribunal act on its personal or specialised knowledge and on matters which are commonly known? Does the discharge of the onus placed on the judicial review applicant to prove that a finding by the Tribunal, which required evidence but was one in respect of which there was not a skerrick of evidence, was material to the outcome require proof that the finding was erroneous?

Federal Court. Is it "appropriate to conclude from the text of s 501G(1), considered in context, that the purpose of the requirement expressed in s 501G(1) for a notice to be given is to be protective of the interests of the person affected by the relevant decision beyond requiring notification"? Do s 500(6A)-(6L) require the Minister to explain the consequences of those provisions?