Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal have the power, in reviewing a refusal to grant the Respondent a SHEV, to determine whether the Minister had made a jurisdictional error in granting him a temporary safe haven visa under s 195A? Is it an implied condition that the state of mind called for by s 195A, namely that the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to grant the visa, be formed on the basis of a correct understanding of the law?

Federal Court. For subclass 485, must the Australian study requirement be satisfied, at the latest, on the day before the application for the visa is made? Is the date of completion of a course for the purpose of the Regulations what the education provider considers it should be? Is a course completed for the purpose of the Regulations as soon as an academic supervisor has positively assessed each unit of study?

Federal Court. Does the principle according to which a failure on the part of an administrative decision-maker to make an obvious inquiry can be a ground of judicial review apply both s 5(2)(g) of the ADJR Act and an analogous jurisdictional error? What are the circumstances in which a court can receive evidence on judicial review? In public law, is the jurisdictional error ground of "fraud" confined to that of the decision-maker, a party, or a party’s representative?

Federal Court. Applicant requested that Minister consider exercising power under s 417 of Migration Act. Case officer made a 3 page initial assessment, concluding: "The claims and circumstances presented in this request are not unique or exceptional when assessed against the Minister’s Guidelines. The case is assessed as not meeting the Guidelines for referral to the Minister". Acting Assistant Director's decision read: "I agree with the assessment that circumstances of this case do not meet the Minister’s Guidelines for referral and that, in accordance with the Guidelines, the Department should finalise this request without referral..." Is s 417 conditioned by the requirement of legal reasonableness? If so, was initial assessment or agreement with it legally unreasonable?

Federal Court: Appellant did not satisfy cl 602.212(6)(b). Thus, cl 602.213(3) & (5) required satisfaction of cl 3001. DHA refused application, as it was lodged after 28-day deadline and thus did not satisfy cl 3001. DHA's decision did not explicitly refer to cl 602.212(6). AAT affirmed decision, but failed to explicitly refer to which parts of cl 602.212(6) or cl 3001 were not satisfied. Did AAT's failure to explicitly mention those parts constitute failure to give proper consideration to the issues before it? If  AAT makes erroneous reference to a written submission that was not in fact provided to it, is that, without more, a jurisdictional error? What is a "substantive temporary visa"?

Federal Court. Did the respondents owe a duty of care to limit the duration of the applicant’s detention to that required for the purpose of his removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable from the time of his written request to be removed made under s 198(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. In order for an error (or errors) in the form of legal unreasonableness in a decision-making process to be labelled "jurisdictional", is it necessary for the materiality of the error to be established as a separate, additional element? Does Makasa apply to s 501(1)? In exercising the power under s 501A(2) to override a decision of the Tribunal, can the Minister rely on matters that were known to him at the time of the Tribunal hearing but not put by him (or on his behalf) to the Tribunal?

Federal Court: Did the FCCA inadvertently deny the Appellant procedural fairness by, among other things, saying to him that "you can't give [the FCCA] anything new"? The answered turned on what "anything new" meant in the circumstances.

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, where "there are two sets of information, going to the safety and suitability of the place of relocation, which are contradictory and inconsistent, the decision-maker must necessarily engage in a “process of evaluation” of the “reliability” of the contradictory and inconsistent sets of information so as to reach a reasoned and reasonable conclusion as to which information, or set of information, he or she will rely upon", for the purposes of ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. In the context of s 116(1)(e)(ii), can it be said that submissions to the Tribunal, viewed as a whole, are a mandatory relevant consideration, but not every aspect of those submissions can be so described? If so, for the purpose of determining whether an aspect of those submissions is a mandatory relevant consideration, is the fundamental question the importance of that aspect to the exercise of the Tribunal’s function, which will depend on the nature of the material and the circumstances of the case?