Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1 detract from the proposition that certain matters in Direction 90 were mandatory considerations which had to be considered even if no representations were made about them, lest the decision-maker make a jurisdictional error? Does the assessment of the materiality of an error made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) involve a balancing, instead of binary, exercise?

High Court (single Justice). Is a protection visa applicant required to pick the correct "label" to describe his or her claims?

Federal Circuit Court: 'The Minister argued that the consequence of that was that the Tribunal did not need to refer to every factor mentioned in Direction No. 53. However, that is not what is meant by saying that the Direction is not a checklist'

Federal Court (FCA). Is the FCA bound by the parties' agreement on the content of the law or facts? If the FCA declares that the Applicant is not an alien within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution, can the Applicant be removed from Australia under s 198 or detained under s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Should the FCA, in the form of a declaration, "lay down a set of rules or prescriptions to be adopted in any potential (or actual) future litigation, which are intended to control the circumstances in which a non-citizen could successfully contend she or he is an Aboriginal Australian"?

Federal Court: The AAT received 2 non-disclosure certificates under s 375A, but only disclosed the existence of the first. The second certificate referred to the MRT, although the MRT had already amalgamated into the AAT. The appellant argue, among other things, that had he known about the existence of the second certificate, he could have argued: that it was invalid as it referred to the abolished MRT; that even if it were valid, he could have argued for a favourable discretion to disclose the content covered by it. Does a discretion really exist?

High Court. Can it be said that "the differences in the text, context and purpose of s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) and, thus, in the construction and application of the separate criteria in s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) compel the conclusion that the principle in Appellant S395 in relation to s 36(2)(a) (whether as that provision was framed at the time of the decision or as now in force) does not apply to the statutory task when considering the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa)? Are the circumstances constituting "significant harm" exhaustively identified in s 36(2A)?

OMARA: "The Agent claimed that he had experienced technical difficulties when lodging" a visa application for a complainant through ImmiAccount. To what extent does OMARA have access to ImmiAccount records? For instance, does it have access to records indicating when a draft application was created or saved? Further, can a client who has not paid any fees or signed an agreement make a complaint?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is compliance with the Direction 90 achieved by focussing upon individual considerations and attributing some form of “weight” to that consideration viewed in isolation, without disclosing any process of reasoning which led from the attachment of weight to each consideration to the ultimate conclusion?

Federal Court. Does the concept of proportionality play a role in determining whether an exercise of discretionary power was legally unreasonable? Does the concept of legal unreasonableness apply to individual aspects of the fact-finding of a decision-maker, such as credibility findings? Does the concept of proportionality form part of the assessment of whether a credibility finding has been made in accordance with established principles as to illogicality or irrationality?

Federal Court. Was the day the person made an application for citizenship the day it was dispatched? Or was it made the day it was received by the Minister?