Case Law Updates

High Court: Unbeknown to the Appellant, Secretary gave IAA additional material in purported compliance with s 473CB(1)(c). However, the additional material was objectively both irrelevant to IAA's review and prejudicial to Appellant. IAA then wrote to Appellant: DHA "has provided us with all documents they consider relevant to your case". It eventually affirmed delegate's protection visa refusal, without requesting new information or interviewing Appellant. IAA's reasons: stated that IAA "had regard to the material referred by the Secretary"; did not refer to additional material. Did the giving of additional material result in: a material "failure of a precondition to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the [IAA] to conduct a review"; a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of IAA?

Federal Court: "On my understanding of the majority approach in SZMTA in those circumstances, read with MZAOL, where there is an admitted non-disclosure of the existence of a s 438 notification, there must be a two-step process undertaken by the supervising court on judicial review to determine “materiality” so as to arrive at a conclusion of jurisdictional error".

Federal Court: this decision provides a useful summary of previous court decisions concerning apprehension of bias and the Immigration Assessment Authority

Federal Court. Can administrative decision-makers draw on their own experience and expertise? The Federal Court answered that question as follows: Extract EHV18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship,...

In CPJ16, FCA had determined whether AAT could consider criteria within s 501(6) not considered by original decision-maker. Here, delegate had refused to grant protection visa based on cl 866.222. By the time of AAT's decision on review, that provision had been disallowed and thus no longer applied. Question to AAT was whether to remit the matter to Department with a direction that cl 866.222 did not apply or assess for itself the other criteria for the grant of the visa. It chose the latter. Was AAT authorised to do that? With respect, this decision makes no reference to CPJ16, which was on point, although concerning a different provision.

Federal Court. Could r 5.19(3)(d)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) only be satisfied if the nominator would not operate at a loss as a result of employing the nominee for 2 years? Was the salary of another nominee a prohibited consideration under r 5.19(3)(d)(i)? If an employment contract makes no mention on whether the terms and conditions of the person’s employment exclude the possibility of extending the period of employment, does that amount to a failure to satisfy r 5.19(3)(d)(ii)?

Federal Court. Was it impossible for the Applicant to demonstrate the testing of his rehabilitation in the community, as he had not been in the community, with the result that the finding about lack of testing in the community was illogical?

Federal Court (Full Court): Q1 to the FCAFC: did Minister personally spend about an hour or only 11 minutes considering whether to cancel a visa? Q2: should the Court could draw a Jones v Dunkel inference that the Minister spent only 11 minutes? Q3: if the Court finds that Minister spent only 11 minutes, was that sufficient for the Minister to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the materials provided by the Department?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the obligation under s 360 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to invite an applicant to a hearing does not operate on a “once and for all” basis, in that, if a new issue arises after a Tribunal hearing, a further hearing must be convened? Are issues which emerge during a hearing also subject to the obligation imposed by s 360?

Federal Court. As the Appellant's detention was unlawful because of NZYQ, was it legally unreasonable or irrational to assess the benefit to the community on the basis of a detention which was unlawful?