Case Law Updates

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?

Federal Court (Full Court). Majority in SZMTA held that a denial of procedural fairness is only jurisdictional if it is material in that, had procedural fairness been afforded, it could have resulted in a different outcome. Can that proposition be reconciled with Ex parte Aala, according to which even trivial denials of procedural fairness amount to jurisdictional error? In order to discharge burden of proving materiality, must judicial review applicants lead evidence in court about what they would have done had the procedure been fair or can the court instead draw inferences of what they could have done (we previously described this as the Ibrahim / Nguyen tension)? If the court can draw that inference, should it do so in the circumstances of this case?

Federal Court (Full Court): The mandatory cancellation provision, s 501(3A), was inserted into the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in 2014 and obliges the Minister to cancel a visa if he/she is satisfied that a non-citizen has a substantial criminal record and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment. "What happens, then, where the non-citizen is serving a term of imprisonment at the time of the Minister’s decision (after the commencement of the mandatory visa cancellation scheme), but the non-citizen has a “substantial criminal record” only because of a different sentence of imprisonment that was served exclusively before the commencement of that scheme? Is the non-citizen’s visa liable to mandatory cancellation in these circumstances?"

Federal Court. Did the terrible pressures of time under which the Tribunal was obliged to make its review decision (the 84-day rule in s 500(6L(c)) provide a justification for the Tribunal having failed to take into account the best interests of minor children to be affected by its decision? Is the offence of failing to comply with a request made by the police to supply personal details, per se, contemplated by para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90?

Federal Court (Full Court): ordinarily, a subclass 820 visa application will be decided first and the 801 second. However, decision makers can reverse that order in some circumstances; perhaps that means that a TSS visa can be refused before nomination is processed in some circumstances, thus denying review rights to visa applicants

Federal Court (Full Court). Under s 5 of the Migration Act, an "excluded fast track review applicant" includes a fast track applicant who "has made a claim for protection in a country other than Australia that was refused by that country". If a protection visa application is refused and the delegate forms the view that the applicant is an excluded fast track review applicant, that refusal is not subject to merits review. Can it be said that "the words 'a claim for protection' used in the relevant category of exclusion mean a claim for protection that was based upon alleged facts that are materially the same as those relied upon as the basis for the claim subsequently made in Australia"?

High Court. In Thornton, the High Court held that ss 85ZR(2) and 85ZS(1)(d)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) precluded consideration of offences committed in Queensland by the respondent to that case when he was a child in the determination of whether to revoke the cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Does Thornton apply to offences committed by children in NSW?

Federal Court (Full Court). One of the judges of the Full Court had appeared as the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in a conviction appeal on a point of law involving the non-citizen in question. The non-citizen's representative applied for that judge to recuse himself from hearing the appeal from an FCA decision dismissing a judicial review application.

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 Circuit and Family Court. Does s 131 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) imply an obligation that a revocation decision is to be made within a "reasonable time"? If so, can it be said that "the decision-making scheme of Subdivision F gives rise to a powerful implication that the Minister’s obligation to consider and determine a revocation application under s 131 should be discharged within a time which is capable of effecting a restoration of the cancelled rights in both a legal and practical sense"?