Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Applicant could not be removed from Australia, due to effect of NZYQ. In the context of a refusal of a protection visa under s 501(1), Minister submitted to Tribunal that “that there were no third country removal options for the Applicant”. On judicial review, Applicant argued that was not true. Does Applicant have a proper basis to seek discovery of what information was available to the Minister concerning the impending third country reception arrangement with the Republic of Nauru at the time of the Tribunal hearing?

Federal Court. Does the rule in Browne and Dunn, being one of fairness, apply equally to a trial judge as to counsel?

Federal Court. Does s 423A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) codify the circumstances in which the Tribunal may draw an unfavourable inference?

Federal Court. Contrary to delegate, AAT found s 36(1C) was met and remitted matter. Minister then personally found Applicant was a danger to the Australian community and refused visa under s 501. Did Minister become "legally bound to apply the reasoning of the Tribunal (absent new circumstances having arisen) in that remitted application more broadly including in respect of his consideration of the Applicant’s representations advanced in reference to s 501". Was the AAT's decision and its reasoning "just another piece of material before him" that the Minister was entitled to place such weight on as he thought fit?

Federal Court. If the Minister for Home Affairs makes a citizenship decision which is overturned by the AAT, can the Minister for Immigration bring judicial review proceedings? Section 16(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 provides that a person born overseas on or after 26 Jan 1949 is eligible to become an Australian citizen if, among other things, "a parent of the person was an Australian citizen at the time of the birth". If a person is born overseas to non-Australian biological parents and is later adopted by individuals who were Australian citizens at the time of that person's birth, is that person deemed to have been born to Australian parents for the purposes of s 16(2)?

Federal Court. Does the AAT Act "require the representative to be independent of the applicant or to provide objective advice or guidance to the applicant"? Can it be said that "to conduct a review that is fair, just and economical does not require the necessary preclusion of a person who is also a witness from acting as a representative provided that by a representative so acting, the applicant is not deprived of a fair opportunity to present his or her case"?

Federal Court (Full Court). The Minister found that the Appellant failed to recognise that he had "psychological sexual issues relating to children". Can it be said that the "term “psychology”, acontextualised, is ambiguous in that it can refer to the scientific study of the human mind or the mental (in contrast to physical) characteristics, properties or attitudes of a person or persons"? If so, was the adjective "psychological" used by the Minister in its unscientific sense?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the terms 'end of the day' mean end of daylight hours for the purpose of the reference to 12 months' imprisonment in ss 501(7)(c)-(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), due to s 47(6) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)? Before cancelling the visa under s 501(3A), was Minister was required to make an anterior decision whether to exercise power under a different provision, such as s 501(2), and afford the appellant the opportunity to be heard about that anterior decision? Did 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 require the Tribunal to make its own assessment of the seriousness of the offending?

Federal Court. Are there situations where a lack of resources may explain the period taken to make a decision under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), but where the decision still has not been made within a reasonable time?

Federal Court. Were the financial capacity criterion and enrolment criterion not entirely independent, with the result that the Tribunal's finding on the latter did not render its error on the former immaterial?