Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Did the Tribunal err in considering that paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) mandated a finding that the applicant’s conduct in obstructing police was “serious”? Did para 8.3(2) of Direction 110 direct attention to the impact on the non-citizen of the loss of any other ties to the Australian community?

Federal Court. In exercising the power in s 501A(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the possibility that if the permanent visa in question was not cancelled the applicant could obtain citizenship an irrelevant consideration or illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable reasoning?

Federal Court (Full Court): Are MOCs allowed to calculate what constitutes "significant costs" under PIC 4007(1)(c)(ii)? Does the degree with which MOCs are required to describe the particularity of the "form or level" of a condition "depend upon the extent to which there is diversity in the experience for those with the particular type of condition"? Who bears the onus of proving that degree on judicial review? Are MOCs' opinions binding for the purposes of waiver? If not, are they at least relevant for those purposes? Can a decision be vitiated with jurisdictional error for having relied on a MOC opinion based on outdated information? If so, must there be a "real indication in the material that the condition ... was changing" in order for the information to be outdated? Does this decision resolve the Ibrahim / Nguyen tension?

Federal Court: does the question "has the applicant been in any previous relationships" in a partner visa application form refer to relationships in general or only to married or de facto relationships? Can decision-makers assume the existence of a previous de facto relationship even if s 5CB is not satisfied? In determining whether information is false, does it matter that, at the time the information was provided, the FCCA had interpreted s 5CB in a way that was subsequently rejected by the FCA?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is an error in the form of legal unreasonableness material to the outcome, by definition?

Federal Court (Full Court). Section 9.1.1 of Direction 79 required AAT, in considering the exercise of discretion under s 501(2), to have regard to the "principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously". Appellant was convicted under s 13 of Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW): "A person who stalks or intimidates another person with the intention of causing the other person to fear physical or mental harm is guilty of an offence". He was also convicted under s 14: "A person who knowingly contravenes a prohibition or restriction specified in an apprehended violence order made against the person is guilty of an offence". Is s 13 limited to physical violence? Was AAT wrong to label offences as "serious"? Did AAT depart from Briginshaw principle because of lack of conviction to support a finding?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) apply to s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that the Minister had the power, after having issued an invitation under s 501CA(3)(b), to issue another invitation that was effective for the purposes of s 501CA(4)?

Federal Court. Was the Applicant a non-alien who was not subject to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that his detention under s 189(1) of the Act was unlawful, because: he was "accepted by the Australian body politic and community as a citizen ...; the fact that he renounced that citizenship in 1995 does not change his non-alien status"; or "he has the essential characteristics of a non-alien, based on a holistic assessment of his circumstances"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is "unwarrantable delay" a "basis upon which, in particular circumstances, any of the remedies sought by the Appellant under s 39B of the Judiciary Act might, in the exercise of a judicial discretion, be refused, in the same way in which the remedies for which s 75(v) of the Constitution provides might be refused"? May a relevant Minister "be taken to have read [a] departmental submission, especially in circumstances where he approved it, wrote brief notes upon it, and signed it"?

Federal Court. In Davis, the High Court held that, in the 2016 Ministerial Guidelines issued in relation to section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the factors that the Department was instructed to assess and balance operated as "an approximation of the public interest". Did the 2016 Ministerial instructions issued in relation to s 195A also operate as "an approximation of the public interest"?