Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In the context of cancellation under s 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the consequence brought about by cl 5001 of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a mandatory relevant consideration, whether or not the Applicant made claims bearing on the latter provision?

Federal Court. Section 486E of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides that a person must not "encourage" the commencement or continuation of migration litigation if the case "has no reasonable prospect of success". Section 486F provides that a court may make a costs order against a person who breached s 486E. Can it be said that a "lawyer’s conduct in formulating the grounds, filing the notice of appeal and certifying the grounds as having reasonable prospects of success, whilst asserting an entitlement to charge fees for legal services for doing those things are together sufficient to support an inference that a legal practitioner has “encouraged” the client to commence and continue the litigation in the requisite sense"?

Federal Court. Can administrative decision-makers draw on their own experience and expertise? The Federal Court answered that question as follows: Extract EHV18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship,...

Federal Court: In an application for merits review to which the 84-day deadline under s 500(6L) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) applies, should the reasons provided by the AAT be scrutinised less rigorously than would otherwise be the case? Was the Tribunal required to expressly put the Applicant on notice that it would consider the impact on victims that could flow from a decision to revoke the visa cancellation, pursuant to cl 14.4(1) of Direction 65? Did the AAT misinterpret cl 14.4(1)? Note: cl 14.4(1) of Direction 79 is identical to cl 14.4(1) of Direction 65.

Federal Court (Full Court): This decision could positively affect other unauthorised maritime arrivals who missed the deadline of 1 October 2017 for making a protection visa application. Question to the FCAFC: Is the exercise of the revocation power in s 46A(2C) subject to procedural fairness? Was the Appellant afforded procedural fairness in the exercise of that power? Did the Minister make a personal procedural decision to consider the exercise of his powers under s 46A? Was a sufficient interest of the Appellant affected?

Federal Circuit Court. Although cl 9.d of Direction 69 refers only to the negative effect of military obligations in an applicant's home country, does the GTE criterion in cl 500.212(a) also encompass any positive effects of such obligations? Was the obiter dicta in MZACP at [33] and [181] according to which errors in the form legal unreasonableness are material by definition and therefore jurisdictional limited to errors in the "ultimate decision", therefore excluding errors in findings of fact?

Federal Court. Must the deferral of the assessment of non-refoulement obligations to a subsequent protection visa application process be legally reasonable?

Federal Court. Does a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 376 prevent decision-makers from referring the documents covered by the certificate to an independent expert under reg 1.23(13) for the purposes of a non-judicially determined claim of family violence? Does the materiality test apply to errors contained in reports made by independent experts?

Federal Court: the A-G declined to recommend to the Governor-General that the Applicant be pardoned and to refer her case to the Queensland Court of Appeal. Were those decisions by the A-G judicially reviewable? Why this decision matters to our clients: under s 501(10) of the Migration Act 1958, a conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of the character test if the person has been pardoned or the conviction has been quashed.

Federal Court: In considering non-refoulement obligations in the context of a decision under s 501CA(4) and Direction 65, did Minister "[misunderstand] that the applicant’s claims would 'necessarily' be considered in the event that the applicant was to make an application for a protection visa"? Minister said it was "unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed in respect of [the applicant] for the purposes of the present decision as he is able to make a valid application for a Protection visa". Is it implicit that Minister understood that such obligations would be considered in the same way in the context of an application for a protection visa? Did Minister fail to give genuine consideration to matters raised by the Applicant outside of the concept of non-refoulement obligations?