Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the word "may" in s 501CA(4) indicate a discretion? Was AAT obliged to consider best interests of minor children, even if those interests were not advanced by the appellant? If so, can it nevertheless be said that AAT "is required to assess the best interests of the child based on the evidence and submissions before it and is not under a general duty to inquire about matters not raised"? If a child who is not a NZ citizen is granted a subclass 444 visa under s 78(1), does it immediately cease to have effect? If a person's visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), is a visa granted to their child under s 78 cancelled by operation of s 140(3)? If so, does the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) have the effect of nullifying a consequential cancellation under s 140(3)? Does Teoh still have work to do?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, for para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90, "evidence or findings which reflect that the appellant misuses alcohol and drugs, has a propensity for poor behaviour or committing crimes while intoxicated and has required rehabilitative intervention does not compel a finding that the appellant has a dependency on alcohol amounting to a “health issue”, let alone one that would impede his reintegration in [his home country]"?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'the decision in Hossain did not state a general principle of statutory construction to the effect that there is an implied obligation that all powers conferred on administrative decision-makers are to be exercised on a correct understanding and application of the applicable law such that a material breach of that obligation would be jurisdictional'.

Federal Court (Full Court). Para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of Direction 90 said that decision-makers must have regard to the fact that family violence is viewed very seriously by the Australian Government. Did para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) bind decision-makers to view family as very serious?

Federal Court. Would the word "health" in para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 "ordinarily be understood to mean any aspect of a person's physical wellbeing"? Did the Tribunal err by confining the term 'health' in para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 to only include currently manifested health issues and difficulties?

Federal Court. Should Minister have put Applicant on notice he would reconsider delegate's findings? Does Direction 79: treat visa refusals as inappropriate in a case where the “character concerns” of the visa applicant present no risk to the Australian community; allow decision-makers to treat the expectations of the Australian community as the decisive consideration? Are those expectations the Minister's conception of what such expectations are? Is a reasonable time to the making of a decision implied into ss 65 or 501? If so, how is it calculated? Was a delay of more than 3 years unreasonable? If so, did detention become unlawful from the time of implied deadline onwards?

Federal Court: a single judge of the FCA accepted that DFQ17 stood for the proposition that refusal letters must clearly convey the deadline for merits review, but also accepted the Minister's argument that the particular letter did so. As a result, arguing DFQ17 has now become more challenging, meaning that submissions on DFQ17 need to be really well articulated.

Federal Court. Did visa subclass 186 "contemplate that an employer can file repeated nomination applications in relation to the same visa application and the same visa applicant"? Can an employer correct an erroneous nomination withdrawal?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the discretion in s 32(4) of the AAT Act relate to persons required to appear before the Tribunal, but not to parties? May the word “appear” in s 32(1) of the AAT Act "be understood as invoking concepts of agency, such that the party may be taken to adopt and to be bound by the choices of the representative in the presentation of his or her case"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Could a conclusion that a non-citizen posed a risk of reoffending similar to other ordinary Australian residents rationally support a conclusion that the risk was unacceptable? Can it be said that "a finding that the appellant’s conduct has not been tested in the community does not establish that the appellant is a risk of reoffending"?