Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Child applied for child visa. Cl 101.222 of Sch 2 required approval of sponsorship. Sponsoring mother used to live with Mr M, who was not the father of the child, was in prison at TOD, was the father of 2 other children of the mother and gave her financial support. AAT had power under reg 1.20KB(12) to refuse sponsorship if it requested police check for sponsor's de facto partner and such partner did not provide it. Mother denied Mr M was her de facto partner and police check was not provided. Is residence in prison a factor as to whether a couple has a de facto relationship? Should AAT have considered s 5CB? If so, did AAT's speculation that Mr M might want to "visit" his children once released despite its finding that he was in a de facto relationship with the mother indicate it did not consider s 5CB(2)(c) and therefore s 5CB?

Federal Court. Combined effect of ss 360(2)(c) and (3) is that an applicant is not entitled to appear before AAT if s 359 applies to the applicant. Subsection 359C(1) applies if a person is invited under s 359 to give information and does not do so within the deadline. Section 363A provides that AAT has no power to permit a person to do a thing if a provision states that the person is not entitled to do that thing, unless a provision "expressly provides otherwise". Does s 363 "expressly [provide] otherwise" by giving AAT the power to "take evidence on oath or affirmation" or to "summon a person to appear"?

Federal Court (Full Court). In assessing Direction 79, can it be said that, "where a matter is relevant to two or more mandatory relevant considerations, a decision-maker is not usually required to take the matter into account repetitiously"?

Federal Court. In circumstances where a judicial review applicant previously brought judicial review proceedings against the same administrative decision in question, is the question of whether the subsequent application is prevented by the principles of res judicata or Anshun estoppel determined by treating judicial review as a whole as the relevant "cause of action"? Was the Tribunal entitled to consider an ITOA and its conclusion for the purpose of s 501CA(4)? Was Tribunal required to be satisfied of Art 1C of the Convention?

Practitioners are being asked questions from several clients who are or have been in China recently or who intend to visit that country. Whether they will be allowed to enter Australia and whether their visas will be cancelled depend on the circumstances of those individuals, including their immigration status and where and when they have been in China. We have classified the circumstances of those individuals in 3 main groups, which we summarise in this article. We further discuss the legislative powers used to cancel visas and to prevent non-citizens (and even Australian citizens in some cases) from entering Australia. We also explain why, if the situation deteriorates, even permanent residency (PR) visas could be cancelled. Although PR cancellations seem unlikely at this stage, practitioners should consider warning clients of that risk and how to mitigate it.

Federal Court (Full Court). By reason of s 82(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Appellant's ETA ceased to be in effect upon the grant of a subclass 600 visa. When the latter visa ceased to be in effect, was the ETA reactivated by operation of law?

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. When assessing under para 8.1.1 of Direction 99 the nature and seriousness of the Appellant's conduct to date, is the fact that he remained and worked unlawfully in Australia an irrelevant consideration?

Federal Court. Should there be "unnecessary obstacles placed in the way of those who identify as First Nations People [such an adverse costs order] in proving what they contend is their rightful status under the Constitution"? Can it be said that the fact that a non-citizen's "legal representation was provided on a conditional basis with recoverable fees limited to any amount of costs paid by the respondent pursuant to an order of the Court tends neither for nor against the exercise of discretion [to award costs] in this case"?

Federal Court (Full Court): is the Minister prohibited from giving natural justice under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958? If not, but the Minister makes a decision believing he is so prohibited, is that an error? If so, is that error jurisdictional? Did the Minister in fact believe he was not allowed to give natural justice? Was it a jurisdictional error for the Minister not to consider protection and non-protection claims?