Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). By reason of s 82(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Appellant's ETA ceased to be in effect upon the grant of a subclass 600 visa. When the latter visa ceased to be in effect, was the ETA reactivated by operation of law?

Federal Court. Do the terms of s 75(v) of the Constitution prevent the abolition of the natural justice rule under s 501BA(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Are there "significant doubts concerning the ability of the applicant to seek “bail” (an order sought in criminal proceedings) in the present administrative context, particularly in light of such authorities as Al-Kateb v Godwin"?

Federal Court. Does family violence include belittling, intimidating, frightening, or similar conduct directed to the person claiming to be the victim of domestic violence? Can it be said that, instead of being obliged to accept the evidence that was before her, the independent expert was required to make her own, independent assessment as to whether or not the appellant was a victim of relevant family violence?

Federal Court: Due to s 500(6L), AAT had only 84 days to decide whether to affirm delegate's decision. Applicant asked for adjournment in order to obtain representation. AAT's refusal to adjourn was legally unreasonable. With respect, in answering whether that error was material, did the FCA echo what the writer had written in an article dated 5 Oct 2019: "is it not the case that it is not possible to rule out that the placing of even more weight to [a consideration] could have tipped the scales in favour of revocation?"

Federal Court. Do the submissions to the IAA alter its obligation to consider the review material, including the claims that were dealt with by the delegate? In determining whether a claim not expressly made to the IAA nevertheless clearly emerged from the materials before it, is it significant that the delegate considered the claim? Was it necessary for the Appellant to expressly repeat to the IAA the claim made to the delegate, in circumstances where there was no evidence that he had abandoned it?

DHA lodged complaint against RMA. To what extent should RMAs: obtain instructions directly from clients, instead of 3rd parties; undertake checks to verify the authenticity of documents; compare different signatures to confirm documents were signed by the same person? Should RMAs alert DHA or MARA to frauds? Can metadata be used to determine whether RMA misled MARA? If MARA asks for copies of "any" correspondence, does it mean only any "relevant" correspondence? If client asks for an RMA to call back later, does this constitute instructions?

Federal Court. In the context of s 116(1)(e)(ii), can it be said that submissions to the Tribunal, viewed as a whole, are a mandatory relevant consideration, but not every aspect of those submissions can be so described? If so, for the purpose of determining whether an aspect of those submissions is a mandatory relevant consideration, is the fundamental question the importance of that aspect to the exercise of the Tribunal’s function, which will depend on the nature of the material and the circumstances of the case?

Federal Court. Is an application to set aside a notice of discontinuance filed in the Circuit Court interlocutory in nature, with the result that leave is required to appeal against the discontinuance? If so, will leave "only be granted where the decision below is both attended with sufficient doubt to warrant it being considered by a Full Court, and would result in substantial injustice if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong"?

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. Does the term 'before the Minister' in s 473DC(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) refer to documents or information to which the delegate has had regard? Is it "necessary for a document or information to be physically before the Minister’s delegate or for the delegate to have had regard to it on the very day the decision is made for it to be said that the document or information was before the Minister when the Minister’s delegate made the decision under s 65"?