Case Law Updates

Federal Court: This decision is extremely important to subclass 482 (TSS) visa applicants. Although it concerned a subclass 457 visa application, it involved the interpretation of a critical provision that is identical to cl 482.212(3). According to this decision, ANZSCO was not the only guide that could be used to determine the "skills, qualifications and employment background" that were necessary for the applicant to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. We explain how practitioners can use this decision to their clients' advantage.

Federal Court. Is the power under r 36.75(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2001 (Cth) to set aside or vary an order dismissing an appeal discretionary? What are the relevant considerations in the exercise of the power under r 36.75(2)? Can it be said that "the Tribunal, by indicating that 'it would think about' whether to seek a translation represented that it would inform the applicant one way of its consideration and allow the applicant to respond"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Tribunal act on its personal or specialised knowledge and on matters which are commonly known? Does the discharge of the onus placed on the judicial review applicant to prove that a finding by the Tribunal, which required evidence but was one in respect of which there was not a skerrick of evidence, was material to the outcome require proof that the finding was erroneous?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that "a process of reasoning that interferes with or undermines a fundamental common law right [such as the privilege against self-incrimination] may for that reason be characterised as legally unreasonable"?

Federal Circuit Court. Can a document that itself is genuine meet the definition of a 'bogus document' by having been fraudulently obtained?

Federal Court (Full Court): Direction 65, which for the purpose of this decision was identical to Direction 79, required the Tribunal to take into account a number of considerations in deciding whether to refuse a visa under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). One such consideration was labelled the "expectations of the Australian community". Are those expectations pre-determined by the direction itself as deemed expectations? What is the content of those expectations?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the generally serious consequences of refoulement – but not the particular consequences in an individual case – are taken into account in giving meaning and content to the requirement that there be “serious reasons for considering”" pursuant to s 5H(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? How to interpret Articles 22(1) and 25(3)(c)-(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force 1 July 2002?

Federal Court. Were the matters captured by s 34(2)(a), s 34(2)(b) and s 34(c) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) mandatory considerations for the purpose of the exercise of the discretion in s 34(2)?

Federal Court. Does the fact that the grant of an injunction would restrain the enforcement of the law by preventing officers of the Commonwealth from performing a statutory duty, and thereby frustrate the legislative scheme of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), provide a strong reason not to grant an interlocutory injunction in the present case?

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"?