Case Law Updates

Federal Court. The Appellant, a subclass 485 visa applicant, had to satisfy cl 485.222 to Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which read as follows: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". Did the Tribunal make an error in finding that a Diploma of Marketing was not closely related to the nominated occupation of chef?

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: when determining under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, should a decision-maker also take into consideration the non-citizen's submissions regarding what the expectations of the Australian community are or should the decision-maker only take into consideration their own views of what constitutes those expectations?

High Court. Is the reference to the act of refusal in s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "simply to an historical fact, that has not been set aside in fact, regardless of its legal effect"? Does s 417 on its face confer a power of substitution only, instead of a power to set aside a decision of the Tribunal? Did the Assistant Minister's act of substitution in s 417(1) have the effect of setting aside the delegate's refusal decision?

Federal Court (Full Court): As mentioned in previous articles, at least 4 single-judge Federal Court decisions are authorities for the proposition that the materiality test expounded by the High Court in Hossain should not be treated as binary in nature. Now, the Full Court has said something which "might" be interpreted as treating the materiality test as binary. If that is the case, we respectfully disagree and explain why.

Federal Court: the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA) made an interlocutory decision to dismiss the Applicant's judicial review application, despite the fact that the Applicant had informed the FCCA that his lawyer had withdrawn from his case the day before the FCCA hearing. Did the Applicant constructively apply for the FCCA hearing to be adjourned by informing it about the claimed lawyer withdrawal? If so, does the same principle apply to AAT hearings?

OMARA: [All expenses incurred for the [subclass 187] nomination application are the responsibility of the sponsor and cannot be transferred to the visa applicant"... "I am satisfied that the Agent’s text message conversation with [the complainant] was related to the facilitation of payments intended to be provided to the employer by the visa applicant for a nominated position. It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the Act to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event".

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, in an appeal by way of re-hearing, "in deciding the proper inferences to be drawn from facts undisputed or otherwise found, the appeal court will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge, but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it"? Is error "limited to showing why or how the trial judge erred in the process or approach that was taken"?

Federal Court. Do the words used in s 196(4) "contemplate proceedings limited to judicial review of a visa cancellation decision"? Can it be said that "s 196(1) applies to a person who is in fact an unlawful non-citizen, or that reliance on s 196(4) assumes the person is, in fact, an unlawful non-citizen"? Is s 196(2) to the effect that "s 196(1) does not prevent the release from immigration detention of a person who is, as a matter of fact, a citizen or a lawful non-citizen"?

Federal Court. Was AAT required to make a finding about the actual likelihood of sponsor and partner visa applicant being half-siblings? Is the combined effect of s 88C and s 88D of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) that a marriage that is valid under foreign law shall be recognised in Australia as valid, unless one of the exceptions in ss 88D(2) to (5) is engaged? While a marriage is prima facie valid pursuant to s 88G(1), do s 88D and s 23B(2) prevail? Does s 12 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) have the effect that s 88G(1) of the Marriage Act applies to an administrative decision concerning a partner visa application, despite s 353 of the Migration Act?