Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). The Full Court discussed in detail whether single judge decisions of the Federal Court (whether in the original or appellate jurisdiction) bind Full Court decisions (whether in the original or appellate jurisdiction) and vice-versa. It also discussed whether Ali, Ibrahim and BCR16 were correctly decided and the effect of Direction 75.

High Court. Was the political question posed by cl 790.227 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (whether the grant of a protection visa was in the national interest) answered by the decision-maker in a manner inconsistent with PIC 4001 and s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), as the Minister found PIC 4001 to be satisfied and disavowed reliance on s 501, thus rendering the visa refusal invalid?

Federal Court: 86-year-old UK national Appellant had visa mandatorily cancelled and applied for a protection visa, claiming he had several health conditions, including a major depressive disorder. He provided a medical letter stating that, if returned to the UK, he was at high risk of suicide. He claimed he was owed complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) in that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed, he would suffer significant harm by being arbitrarily deprived of his life pursuant to s 36(2A)(a). Is s 36(2A)(a) restricted to the risk of being deprived of life by a third party? If so and if the UK did not prevent his suicide, would that constitute arbitrary deprivation of life? If so, did the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in not assessing what would be the UK’s response to the risk of suicide?

Federal Court. Would the word "health" in para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 "ordinarily be understood to mean any aspect of a person's physical wellbeing"? Did the Tribunal err by confining the term 'health' in para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 to only include currently manifested health issues and difficulties?

Federal Circuit Court: The risk of harm or persecution if removed from Australia 'was a matter to be weighed by the Tribunal in determining whether to affirm the' delegate's decision to cancel the visa

Yet another matter remitted by the AAT to the Department based on DFQ17. In DFQ17, the Full Court of the Federal Court held that a "late" Tribunal application was actually not late as the Department's notification letter did not clearly convey the deadline for a valid Tribunal application.

Federal Court. The grounds of appeal formulated by the self-represented appellant "do not appropriately articulate any appellable error by the primary judge. On their face, they simply ask this Court to detect jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision". Would it be wholly inappropriate to read those grounds of appeal "as asserting that the learned primary judge erred by failing to detect the jurisdictional errors identified in grounds one and two"?

Federal Court. Even though the applicant had not been convicted in court, the Tribunal found that he had been 'convicted'. Did the Tribunal finding involve a misinterpretation of the law? Could the Tribunal have reasonably considered the view of the applicant's minor child to love the applicant to be irrelevant to the best interests of the child?

Federal Court. Applicant was convicted of manslaughter. In considering under s 501CA(4) whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Applicant's visa, Minister referred to a media article that, according to Minister, related the Applicant's "failure to provide information to the Queensland Parole Board in relation to the body of the deceased notwithstanding that he was the admitted instigator of the events leading to his death". Was Minister prevented from considering that article, in light of the FCAFC decision in HZCP?

Federal Court: IAA affirmed decision to refuse Appellant a protection visa on the basis that he could relocate to Kabul: "I am ... not satisfied that there is a real risk of him facing significant harm ... in Kabul". Under s 36(2B)(a), "there is taken not to be a real risk that a non-citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if ... it would be reasonable for the non-citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm". As per MZACX and MZZJY, in order for relocation to be reasonable, risk of harm in other place is relevant, but risk need not be as high as "real" and harm need not be as serious as "significant". Did IAA treat reasonableness of relocation as necessarily involving the same risk and level of harm as set out in s 36(2)(aa), namely "real" and "significant"?