Case Law Updates

Federal Court: Due to s 500(6L), AAT had only 84 days to decide whether to affirm delegate's decision. Applicant asked for adjournment in order to obtain representation. AAT's refusal to adjourn was legally unreasonable. With respect, in answering whether that error was material, did the FCA echo what the writer had written in an article dated 5 Oct 2019: "is it not the case that it is not possible to rule out that the placing of even more weight to [a consideration] could have tipped the scales in favour of revocation?"

Federal Court: The Minister issued a non-disclosure certificate under s 438 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the Tribunal relating to matters that were relevant to the Tribunal's decision. Can it be said that "the fact that evidence [given by the Minister] is relevant to an administrative decision does not mean that the decision maker is obliged to take the evidence into account unless it is also constitutes a mandatory relevant consideration"? Important: this decision says nothing about whether relevant information given by a visa applicant or holder is a mandatory consideration. The above question concerns only information given by the Minister to another administrative decision-maker.

Federal Court. Should there be "unnecessary obstacles placed in the way of those who identify as First Nations People [such an adverse costs order] in proving what they contend is their rightful status under the Constitution"? Can it be said that the fact that a non-citizen's "legal representation was provided on a conditional basis with recoverable fees limited to any amount of costs paid by the respondent pursuant to an order of the Court tends neither for nor against the exercise of discretion [to award costs] in this case"?

High Court. If one misses the deadline for merits review of a migration decision, with the result that the only way of challenging the decision is by way of judicial review in the High Court's original jurisdiction, should they adduce evidence in Court about why the missed that deadline?

Federal Court. Delegate mandatorily cancelled visa under s 501(3A) on character grounds, but then revoked that cancellation under s 501CA. Applicant offended again and delegate mandatorily cancelled visa under s 501(3A) again, but this time did not revoke the cancellation. AAT affirmed non-revocation decision. Can it be said that, as earlier revocation decision formed part of the background facts against which AAT came to exercise its review jurisdiction, the facts before the AAT were not the same as those before the delegate at the time of revocation, with the result that AAT was not bound to follow that revocation decision?

Federal Court. Does legislation "operate extraterritorially merely because it might have some relationship to events which occur overseas"? Does s 6 of the Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Emergency Requirements—High Risk Country Travel Pause) Determination 2021 (Cth) operate extraterritorially? Is there a "common law right on the part of Australian citizens to re-enter Australia"? If so, was that right abrogated by legislation?

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 (Full Court). Was the Tribunal entitled to double count its assessment of the seriousness of the applicant's offending both when attributing weight to that specific consideration and again when weighing all considerations, both primary and other, in the final assessment?

Federal Court. This decision interprets in detail the operation of s 116(1)(e): "... the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that... the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to ... the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community".

Federal Court. Was a finding that the Appellant had been indifferent as to whether her representative had provided false or misleading information "capable of sustaining the conclusion that the information had the requisite character of purposeful falsity", as required by the "false or misleading" test in PIC 4020(1)?