Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was it "uncontroversial that people in immigration detention are subject to a much greater level of surveillance and monitoring than people in the community generally"? Would the complaint that the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant consideration have force "if the fact that the applicant’s ability to avoid drug use had not been “tested” was the Tribunal’s only basis for finding that he posed an elevated risk of reoffending"?

Federal Court. Would an error in exercising the power in s 501(3A) more than once in respect of the same failure to pass the character test in s 501(3A)(a) not be material if a separate conviction and sentence existed which, although not relied upon for the purpose of s 501(3A)(a), on its face met the threshold of the Minister being satisfied as to an applicant having "a substantial criminal record"?

Federal Court (Full Court): In 2012, delegate decided not to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to refuse the Appellant a bridging visa and notified him of it. In 2013, Appellant was granted a partner visa. In 2016, Appellant was convicted for conduct occurring for 7 years until 2009. In 2018, Minister found that Appellant failed the character test due to the 2016 conviction and personally exercised the discretion to cancel his visa under s 501(2). Did the 2012 decision estop the Minister from making the 2018 decision?

High Court. Is a visa refusal by reason of ss 501 or 501A a decision under s 65? Is PIC 4001 "void for uncertainty because it used the expression "character test" without definition"? Are delegates "bound by a prior, internally recorded view" about whether visa criteria were met? Can a s 65 officer refer an application for a decision under s 501? Can a single decision under s 65 be segmented into various discrete decisions? Are the Minister's powers under ss 501(1) and 501A(2) "spent ... if a visa should have otherwise been granted under s 65, but has not been granted"? Did the Minister have jurisdiction to make a decision under s 501A(2) even if the decision of the Tribunal was invalid?

Federal Court (Full Court): Is the obiter dicta in MZZJO authority for the proposition that a decision-maker will necessarily make a jurisdictional error if, in assessing a protection visa application, he or she relies "solely or primarily on the absence of claims from an entry interview" whose purpose is not to assess the applicant's claim for protection?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do Ch III of the Commonwealth Constitution, the High Court decisions in Dietrich and (No 2), the common law of procedural fairness or customary international support the conclusion that non-citizens have a right to legal representation against the Minister?

Federal Court (Full Court): AAT did to disclose existence of a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 438(1)(b), but did not take the information covered by it, which related to the Appellant's claim for protection, into consideration. AAT found that: 1) Appellant did not have a well-founded fear of prosecution nor satisfied the complementary protection provisions; 2) and, in any event, Appellant could reasonably relocate to safe areas of his country, meaning that he was not owed protection obligations. If the first finding was erroneous, was that error material/jurisdictional?

Federal Court. Was the MOC's opinion that the costs would be likely to result in a significant cost to the Australian community in areas of health care and community services incorrect "because it included State disability services costs when in fact the NSW State disability services had been subsumed into the NDIS from 1 July 2018"?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Tribunal refused to release information under s 362A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), finding that disclosure was not permitted under the Australian Privacy Principle 6. Did the Tribunal make an error, in that the primary purpose of collecting such information was the same for which the delegate and Tribunal would have disclosed it, namely to assess whether the applicant was the sponsor's spouse?

Federal Court. Was the Applicant "entitled to have his claims for protection in respect of Nauru determined and, if found to be well founded, not to be refouled to Nauru", in light of the omission in s 197C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to a reference to s 198AD, despite the Minister's power to take him to Nauru pursuant to s 198AD and despite the fact that the Migration Act does not provide a statutory mechanism to determine such a claim?