Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Section 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided: "A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant is not a person whom the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds … having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community.”

Federal Court: Was the Tribunal "ill-advised" to say that it was unacceptable for the Appellant and his mother to state that the Department’s record was untrue? Could the motivation of the Appellant for entry into the relationship (i.e. to obtain permanent residency, as found by the Tribunal) be taken into account in order to determine whether the relationship was genuine? Was this a case where the "well is poisoned beyond redemption" such that 14 statutory declarations could be completely dismissed?

Federal Court. Does FCA have jurisdiction to review a delegate's decision to refuse under s 501CA(4) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa made under s 501(3A)? Can the self-represented Applicant's notice of appeal from the Minister's decision be treated, in substance, as: a notice of appeal from the Tribunal's decision; including an application for a time extension under s 477A(2)(a)? How should the FCA approach poorly-cast grounds of judicial review? Is the Tribunal required to conduct hearings in person?

Federal Court. In Mataia, FCA had decided that the principle in cl 6.3(5) of Direction No 79 is a not a mandatory relevant consideration. Does Mataia apply to cl 6.3(7)?

High Court. In determining whether removal to a country is practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, can the steps practically available to be taken "be expected frequently to include administrative processes directed to removal which require the cooperation of the detainee and in which the detainee has the capacity to cooperate"?

Federal Court. Is what the High Court said in SZSSJ also applicable to s 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Can the Minister lay down Ministerial intervention guidelines?

Federal Court (Full Court). The Tribunal made its decision after Direction 90 commenced but before Direction 99 commenced. Was the Tribunal obliged to have regard to the “change in policy” in Direction 99?

One of the complaints against the practitioner came from the Department and was described by the OMARA as follows: "The Former Agent deliberately lodged invalid visa applications to prolong [a client's]  stay [in Australia] and to allow time to meet the visa requirements".

Federal Court: a single judge of the FCA accepted that DFQ17 stood for the proposition that refusal letters must clearly convey the deadline for merits review, but also accepted the Minister's argument that the particular letter did so. As a result, arguing DFQ17 has now become more challenging, meaning that submissions on DFQ17 need to be really well articulated.

Federal Court. Did Direction 90 preclude Tribunal from considering a claim relating to extent of impediments if removed, as the claim fell outside the considerations set out in para 9.2(1)? Was the Tribunal expected to discuss whether its finding that removal from Australia was likely to result in hardship of itself was or formed part of “another reason” to revoke the visa cancellation pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If so and the Tribunal did not discuss the effect of that finding, was the standard of reasonable conjecture for establishing materiality undemanding?