Case Law Updates

Federal Court. AAT affirmed delegate's decision not to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. On 10 Feb 2020, FCA quashed AAT's decision, but reserved its judgement on whether it should issue a writ of mandamus requiring AAT to determine the application according to law. Subsection 500(6L), which applied to the Applicant at the time of the AAT's decision, provided that the delegate's decision would be affirmed by default if the AAT did not make a decision within 84 from notification of the delegate's decision. Given that, by 10 Feb 2020, the 84-day deadline had already lapsed, would it be futile to issue a writ of mandamus? Or was the AAT's decision, despite having been quashed by the AAT, nevertheless a decision for the purposes of s 500(6L), with the result that that provision no longer applies?

Federal Court. Direction 79 provides: "crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously". AAT set aside delegate's decision not to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa under s 501(3A). AAT said that Applicant had "committed offences of violence which relate to vulnerable people" and found that those offences were "serious", not "very serious". Did that finding in itself constitute a jurisdictional error? Does para 13.1.1(1)(b) state that "crimes of a violent nature against women and children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed"? Does para 13.1.2 require AAT to "reach a decision on the nature of the harm that might be involved"? Did AAT engage with para 13.2(4)?

Federal Circuit Court: for the purposes of cancellation under s 116(1)(e), the risk to the good order of the Australian community included risk caused by actions of members of that community; those members needed not be reasonable nor identified

High Court. Is a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 473GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "new information" within the meaning of s 473DC? If so and the IAA treats a certificate as valid and exercises the power conferred by s 473GB(3)(a) to have regard to the information protected by the certificate, can the IAA be taken to have considered that the certificate itself "may be relevant" within the meaning of s 473DC(1)(b)?

Federal Court: a time of decision criterion for visa subclass 836 is that a medical certificate must state that the person receiving care has and will continue to have a need for direct assistance for at least 2 years. Does it mean that the certificate must be issued shortly before the time of decision? Could the certificate issued in 2010 "reasonably say anything about the degree of impairment of the sponsor 8 years later"? Does a medical certificate expire?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "if it is common ground between parties that a particular fact is so, then it is a denial of procedural fairness for an administrator, for example, the Tribunal, to depart from that position without giving each party an opportunity to make submissions on that subject; in other words, ambushing by a decision-maker can amount to jurisdictional error"?

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: May ss 473DD(a) and (b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) overlap? Further, IAA refused to consider new info, saying: "The mere fact that some of the applicant’s siblings have been granted protection on the basis the applicant claims is the same as his own claims, has no probative value when assessing the applicant’s claims for protection". Did IAA, in effect, say that "in no circumstances could evidence" relating to the siblings "have probative value when assessing the applicant’s claims for protection", thus amounting to jurisdictional error?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is "the violation of international law ... intrinsically and inherently a matter of national interest, and therefore within the subject of evaluation" under s 501A(2)? If not, does this answer "create any relevant incongruity with a finding that a failure to consider those obligations in a particular case ... means that the state of satisfaction as to national interest mandated by s 501A(2)(e) has not been arrived at reasonably in the legal sense"? Does the Minister have a discretion under s 501A(2)?

Federal Court. Delegate collected photos and screenshots from Facebook accounts which were not included in, but were referred to, in its decision record. Appellant provided AAT with those reasons, but not the photos and screenshots. AAT was obliged under s 424A(1)(a) to give Appellant particulars of any information it considered would be the reason for affirming decision, except if Appellant gave that information for the purpose of the review application (s 424A(3)(b)). Can it be said that exception did not apply because, "although the photos and screenshots ... were not themselves exhibited in the Delegate’s Reasons, those reasons clearly referred to the substance of the Facebook information, and incorporated that information by reference to the departmental file"?