Case Law Updates

Federal Court: 'The statutory scheme ... contains no indication that the application process might be kept on foot at the election of an applicant by the applicant exercising a “right” ... to keep re-sitting the ... Test'

Federal Court. Even though the applicant had not been convicted in court, the Tribunal found that he had been 'convicted'. Did the Tribunal finding involve a misinterpretation of the law? Could the Tribunal have reasonably considered the view of the applicant's minor child to love the applicant to be irrelevant to the best interests of the child?

Federal Court (Full Court). FCCA reserved for 5 years its judgement on an application under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for an extension of time within which to make a judicial review application. Did the FCCA make a jurisdictional error by failing to take into account its own delay in determining the application for an extension of time? Can delay be sufficient to infect a judgement with jurisdictional error?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "once judgment has been reserved, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Court will subsequently give leave to a party to re-open the case"? Were the circumstances of this case, where the applicant was a self-represented litigant seeking habeas corpus, exceptional? Can it be said that "abuse of process principles can be applied in respect of repeated applications for the issue of writs of habeas corpus within a short time frame"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is it "permissible for the Court to speculate as to how the Tribunal might have reasoned or what conclusions it might have reached if it had not made the error in question"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Under s 5 of the Migration Act, an "excluded fast track review applicant" includes a fast track applicant who "has made a claim for protection in a country other than Australia that was refused by that country". If a protection visa application is refused and the delegate forms the view that the applicant is an excluded fast track review applicant, that refusal is not subject to merits review. Can it be said that "the words 'a claim for protection' used in the relevant category of exclusion mean a claim for protection that was based upon alleged facts that are materially the same as those relied upon as the basis for the claim subsequently made in Australia"?

Federal Court (Full Court): Appellant's licence was terminated, after which he applied to the (1st) AAT, which affirmed original decision after a hearing. FCCA remitted the matter to the (2nd) AAT, which also carried out a hearing. 2nd AAT was reconstituted by another Member (3rd AAT) and then affirmed Board's decision. Was 3rd AAT required to afford the Appellant a further hearing? Could any findings by 1st AAT bind the 3rd? Was 3rd AAT allowed to consider 1st AAT's hearing transcript? Could AAT authoritatively determine the limits of its own authority?

Federal Court. Can a failure to make an obvious inquiry amount to jurisdictional error in decisions to revoke citizenship under s 34 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007? In assessing whether revocation would render Applicant stateless, was it legally unreasonable for Department to rely on information provided by the Ukrainian Vice Consul concerning the operation of the laws of her own country, as the Vice Consul was not a Ukrainian lawyer? Was Minister bound to engage in an “active intellectual process” in deciding whether to exercise his power under s 34(2)? We summarise answers to these and several other questions.

Federal Court (Full Court): Is para 12.3(1) of Direction No 65 concerned with the effects of a crime on a victim and their family? Or is it concerned with the additional impact of a decision to grant a visa on the victim and their family? If the latter applies: could AAT nonetheless deal with Appellant's criminal conduct as "an aspect of evaluating the seriousness of the offending conduct and also a consideration that could be viewed as independently relevant and therefore a matter that must be taken into account under para 12(1)"; if AAT treated para 12.3(1) as concerned with the effects of the crime (as opposed to the effect of visa grant) on the victim and their family, does it necessarily follow that AAT made a jurisdictional error?

Federal Court (Full Court): Direction 65, which for the purpose of this decision was identical to Direction 79, required the Tribunal to take into account a number of considerations in deciding whether to refuse a visa under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). One such consideration was labelled the "expectations of the Australian community". Are those expectations pre-determined by the direction itself as deemed expectations? What is the content of those expectations?