Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). FCCA reserved for 5 years its judgement on an application under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for an extension of time within which to make a judicial review application. Did the FCCA make a jurisdictional error by failing to take into account its own delay in determining the application for an extension of time? Can delay be sufficient to infect a judgement with jurisdictional error?

Federal Court. Ground 2 of the judicial review application was that, in cancelling Applicant's visa, Minister failed to have proper regard to the legal consequences of that decision, the prospect of indefinite detention and the impact on Applicant's mental health. Even if the Minister were required to respond to the interrogatory in a way that supports the submission that, contrary to s 197C of the Act, no person has ever been refouled to Iraq, would that evidence be admissible? Can the collective knowledge of the Department be imputed to the Minister personally?

Federal Court. For the purposes of the materiality test, FCAFC (White, Perry and Charlesworth JJ) held in Ibrahim that the judicial review applicant had to prove what would have happened had the decision-maker not made the error in question. FCAFC (Rares, Griffiths and Burley JJ) in Karan came to the same conclusion. FCAFC (Jagot, Robertson and Farrell JJ) in Nguyen disagreed with Ibrahim. FCAFC (Katzmann, Mortimer and Bromwich JJ) recently adopted one of Ibrahim and Nguyen. However, as the FCA decision extracted in this article indicates, the division shown by the Ibrahim / Nguyen tension is still present among justices of the FCA.

Federal Court. Is a party entitled to apply to the Federal Court for a referral for pro bono assistance? If not, may that party nevertheless "raise the possibility of a referral and thereby invite the Court to consider the exercise of the discretion under r 4.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)"?

Federal Court. Did the Tribunal need to form a view pursuant to PIC 4020(4)(b) about the likely period of separation before determining whether PIC 4020(1) should be waived?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'it will not always be illogical or irrational to place “some weight” on anonymous information'

High Court. "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", is it open to the decision-maker to "defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non‑refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa"?

High Court. Did the delegate fail to comply with ss 56 and 62 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and thus made a jurisdictional error, by saying that "any documents that are not translated by accredited translators in Australia, or by official offshore translators, will not be included as part of [the assessment of whether to grant a visa]"?

Federal Court. Did s 501A(2)(e) require the Minister to consider that there may be consequences for the national interest of breaching Australia's international non-refoulement obligations? Did the power conferred on the Minister by s 501A(2) impose an obligation on the Minister to consider the practical consequences for the Applicant of being returned to the country where he faced persecution?

Federal Court (Full Court). Judicial review applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled, but cancellation was revoked by delegate under s 501CA(4) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth). His visa was mandatorily cancelled again under s 501(3A) due to further offences, but this time a delegate refused to revoke cancellation. Was AAT bound to set aside non-revocation decision, on the basis that s 474(1)(a) provided that the revocation decision was final and conclusive?