Case Law Updates

Federal Court: AAT made jurisdictional error by characterising applicant's actions as a 9-year-old as 'offences'

Federal Court: In considering whether to revoke a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), is evidence required to support a decision-maker's conclusion that the non-citizen in question will have access to public health system and social welfare if returned to New Zealand? Has the Tribunal misinterpreted cl 14.2(1)(a)(i) of Direction No 65? Were the "other considerations" in the Direction mandatory considerations?

Federal Court. Is the Tribunal required under Direction 99 to "consider whether the decision is in the best interests of a particular child if the facts known to the Tribunal are such as to raise a realistic question as to whether the decision will affect that child"?

Federal Court. Was the Tribunal required to advise the applicant of his entitlement to seek a short adjournment so that he could provide statements from one of more of his siblings in Australia?

Federal Court. In determining whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Applicant's removal, is it sufficient that the underlying judicial review proceeding challenge only the discharge of the obligation under s 66, without directly challenging the exercise of the power under s 198 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Does the FCA have jurisdiction to declare a notification as non-compliant with s 66 of the Act?

High Court. "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", is it open to the decision-maker to "defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non‑refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa"?

Federal Court. The Applicant was an NZYQ-affected BVR holder. Was it "not necessarily irrational or illogical to consider the provisions of the Direction on the basis that cancellation of the applicant's Global Special Humanitarian visa would remove his entitlement to stay in Australia thereby requiring his removal, provided the Tribunal also separately and sufficiently brought to account the additional consideration relevant to the applicant, namely that, in all likelihood, he would remain in Australia under different visa arrangements"?

OMARA: "As a member of the migration advice profession, the Agent is expected to act with fairness, honesty and courtesy when dealing with other [RMAs]. This includes efficient and effective communication with other agents with respect to the transfer of client information to the new agent when the original agent’s appointment is terminated... [T]he Agent had made a written undertaking to another migration agent to provide relevant documents, and had failed to do so, in breach of clause 4.6 of the Code".

Federal Court. Is the question of indefinite detention a relevant consideration in the exercise of the task under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "a conclusion as to a person’s citizenship might be made administratively without any passport or other identity documents, just on the basis of an apparently truthful statement by the person (or another, perhaps a parent) as to their place of birth and confirmation by an Australian diplomatic or other source that persons so born acquire that country’s citizenship"?