Case Law Updates

Federal Circuit Court. Clause 485.212(a)(ii) required the visa application to be accompanied by evidence that the applicant "has achieved, within the period specified by the Minister in the instrument, the score specified ... in the instrument". Clause 4 of IMMI 15/062 specified for cl 485.212(a)(ii) that the test "must have been undertaken within the three years before the day on which the application was made". Did a test undertaken before the 3-year timeframe but whose result was achieved within that timeframe satisfy cl 485.212(a)(ii)?

Federal Court: IAA must not consider new info unless: exceptional circumstances exist (s 473DD(a)); and new info could not have been provided to DHA or is credible personal information not previously known (s 473DD(b)). May IAA's satisfaction of s 473DD(b) contribute to its satisfaction of s 473DD(a)? Must it so contribute? If it may, but not necessarily must, so contribute, should it at least usually so contribute? If so, may lack of reference to matters in s 473DD(b) in IAA's reasons lead to an inference that those matters were not considered in determining whether s 473DD(a) was satisfied?

Federal Court. IMMI 17/016 specified that applications for a Aged Dependent Relative (Class BU) visa had to be made by post or "delivered by courier service". Did the delivery by an employee of the Appellant's law firm satisfy the latter requirement? Or was it necessary for the delivery to be made by a private company that provides courier delivery services, with the result that the application delivered by that employe was invalid?

Federal Court: In Ibrahim, FCAFC held that Minister was not prohibited from affording natural justice under s 501BA(2). In Burgess, FCAFC held that Ibrahim applied to s 501(3). Were Ibrahim or Burgess wrongly decided? If the Minister's decision record disclosed no error in the interpretation of the above provision, but the Minister admits that error in court, does that mean that the decision record should be ignored in determining whether the Minister made a jurisdictional error? Did the transfer of the Applicant between immigration detention centres amount to false imprisonment?

Federal Court: AAT found that a forensic psychologist "was argumentative and defensive ... and did not present as an impartial witness". Although "it will usually be necessary for a decision maker to give reasons for an adverse credit finding", does the same principle apply to expert witnesses? Further, FCA held that the AAT's failure to take into account a claim about a consideration was not material because the Tribunal had already accorded that consideration "considerable weight" in favour of the Applicant.

Federal Court. Is the validity of an application to the Tribunal under s 500 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a jurisdictional fact? By finding that the review application was out of time, did the Tribunal implicitly found that that application was invalid? Did the mere sending of a bundle of documents to the Tribunal constitute a valid Tribunal application?

Federal Court. Was the view of the Australian government and community that sexual and violence-related crimes are "very serious" (as 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 records) something that was apt to inform any assessment of the nature or seriousness of the Applicant's criminal history, in circumstances where his offending was neither sexual nor violence-related?

Federal Court (Full Court): AAT dismissed application under s 42A of AAT Act. Applicant applied for reinstatement of that application. AAT refused to reinstate on the assumption that, if it reinstated, the original decision would be affirmed by operation of s 500(6L) of the Migration Act, thus rendering reinstatement useless. Was that assumption wrong? If so, could this judgement have the effect of tempting applicants, in some circumstances, to seek, in effect, a time "extension" by causing the AAT to dismiss an application, as odd as that looks at first glance?

High Court (Full Court): a non-citizen held in immigration detention invited the Court to draw the inference that there was no real prospect or possibility that he would be removed from Australia. Based on that inference, he also invited the Court to adopt the view of the minority in Al-Kateb, to the effect that his detention was unlawful.

Federal Court: This decision is arguably relevant to migration matters in general. Applicant's Newstart allowance was cancelled by Centrelink. He applied to AAT for merits review, arguing why the allowance should not be cancelled under s 80 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth). Without notice to the Applicant, AAT affirmed cancellation decision based on s 95 of that Act. In Alphaone, FCA had held that the procedural fairness rule did not require decision-makers to reveal their "thought process". Was the reliance on s 95 instead of 80 a "thought process"?