Migrants’ right to legal representation?
Federal Court (Full Court). Do Ch III of the Commonwealth Constitution, the High Court decisions in Dietrich and (No 2), the common law of procedural fairness or customary international support the conclusion that non-citizens have a right to legal representation against the Minister?
Direction No 53: mandatory considerations for GTE
Federal Circuit Court: 'The Minister argued that the consequence of that was that the Tribunal did not need to refer to every factor mentioned in Direction No. 53. However, that is not what is meant by saying that the Direction is not a checklist'
Appeal: meaning of “removed or deported from Australia”
High Court. Paragraph (d) of the definition of "behaviour concern non-citizen" under s 5(1) provided as follows: "a non-citizen who ... has been removed or deported from Australia or removed or deported from another country". Does that definition imply removal effected in accordance with Div 8 of Pt 2 of the Act or lawfully or validly removed? Can the legal acts referred to in paras (a) to (c) "be quashed or reversed by a court with the result that there is no decision within the meaning of paras (a) to (c)"?
Whether citizenship revocation would result in statelessness: jurisdictional fact?
Federal Court. Paragraph 34(3)(b) of Citizenship Act 2007 provided citizenship revocation could not occur if "the Minister is satisfied that the person would, if the Minister were to revoke the person's Australian citizenship, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country". Is the question whether Applicant would become “a person who is not a national or citizen of any country” a jurisdictional fact, so that the Court can and should answer that question for itself? Is s 34(3)(b) a limitation upon, as opposed to a precondition for, the exercise of the power to revoke citizenship?
Granular assessment of re-offending risk?
Federal Court. In assessing the risk of a non-citizen re-offending for the purpose s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is it unnecessary for a decision-maker to descend to a level of granularity of assessing the risk of specific future criminal conduct, as that would "require the Minister to either develop superhuman prescience or engage in what could only be wild speculation which would ultimately be meaningless"? Is there a "period of limitation in the Act which might prevent the Minister taking action under s 501(2)"?
Nathanson expanded to failure to consider claim or evidence?
Federal Court. In Nathanson, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ held in the context of a denial of procedural fairness that the standard of reasonable conjecture, used to determine whether an error was material and thus jurisdictional, was "undemanding". Is a reasonable conjecture applicable in the context of an assessment of the materiality of errors in the form of a failure to consider a claim or evidence in support of a claim? If so, is the standard of reasonable conjecture also undemanding in such a context?
Does s 501(6)(b) capture conduct committed wholly outside Australia?
Federal Court (Full Court): A person fails the character test under s 501(6)(b) if they have been a member of, or have been associated with, a group, organisation or person that has been involved in criminal conduct. Does the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 set up a presumption that a piece of legislation that is silent about its territorial operation, as is the case with s 501(6)(b), only applies within Australia? If so, does the object of the Migration Act 1958 rebut that presumption?
s 116(1)(g): risk of harm or persecution
Federal Circuit Court: The risk of harm or persecution if removed from Australia 'was a matter to be weighed by the Tribunal in determining whether to affirm the' delegate's decision to cancel the visa
Judgement affecting the liberty of an individual?
Federal Court: s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 provides that an appeal shall not be brought to the Federal Court (FCA) from the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA), unless the FCA gives leave to appeal. However, according to s 24(1C), leave is not required for an appeal from an interlocutory judgement affecting the liberty of an individual. Was a no-jurisdiction judgement by the FCCA an interlocutory judgement that affected the liberty of an individual?
Appellant entitled to costs if he only won due to Minister’s identification of error?
Federal Court (FCA). The Appellant's judicial review application to the Federal Circuit Court was dismissed. He then appealed that decision to the FCA. During FCA proceedings, the Minister identified an error by the IAA which had not been identified by the Appellant and conceded the appeal on that basis. Should the Appellant obtain an order for costs at first instance?