Case Law Updates

Federal Court: "On my understanding of the majority approach in SZMTA in those circumstances, read with MZAOL, where there is an admitted non-disclosure of the existence of a s 438 notification, there must be a two-step process undertaken by the supervising court on judicial review to determine “materiality” so as to arrive at a conclusion of jurisdictional error".

Federal Court (Full Court): a non-citizen was born, and was usually resident, in India. Although eligible for Sri Lankan citizenship, he was stateless. The IAA assessed his protection visa application on the basis that he was a Sri Lankan "national". The Minister argued to the Court that a person is a "national" of a country if they are a citizen or eligible for citizenship of that country.

Federal Court: Section 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which is now repealed but still operative in some legacy cases, qualified some aspects of Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention. In WZAPN, the High Court held that "whether a risk to loss of liberty constitutes 'serious harm' for the purposes of s 91R(1)(b) requires a qualitative judgment". Here, the AAT found that an isolated abduction incident did not constitute a real chance of serious harm. Was that a non-qualitative finding, which thus misinterpreted s 91R?

Federal Court. Was it an irrelevant consideration for the Tribunal to take into account the Appellant's future intentions when determining whether he intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily pursuant to cl 500.212(a)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court. What does the requirement to consider the two limbs in cl 13.1.2(1) in Direction 79 "cumulatively" mean? If the Tribunal considers the two limbs in cl 13.1.2(1) in sequence before proceeding to consider them together and in combination, does it follow that it did not consider them "cumulatively"?

Federal Court. If a decision-maker first states its conclusion and then talks about the evidence concerning that conclusion, does that indicate the decision-maker made the conclusion without considering that evidence? Does s 416 require AAT to refuse to consider the information that was before a previous AAT, or to have regard to the previous AAT's decision, or to take it to be correct? Can AAT adopt or accept the conclusion or the process of reasoning of a previous AAT in whole or in part?

Federal Court (Full Court). In deciding not to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory cancellation of Appellant's visa, Minister found that, in American Samoa and Samoa: English was widely spoken; Appellant and his family would have access to health and welfare services. Could Minister base those findings on common knowledge? Were they so based? Does the materiality test involve a court asking itself whether, in the absence of the error in question, the administrative decision-maker would have made a different decision? In the context of s 501CA(4), does the materiality test involve a balancing or a binary exercise?

Federal Court: Appellant made invalid protection visa application containing only claim X and then made a valid protection visa application containing claims X and Y. The valid application was refused and the Appellant then applied to AAT for merits review. The AAT considered the fact that the invalid application did not contain claim Y as indicative that the Appellant's claims were fabricated and affirmed the delegate's decision. Subsection 47(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided (and still does) that "the Minister is not to consider an application that is not a valid application" and also applied to the AAT. Can it be said the the AAT's consideration of the claim contained in the valid application by reference to the material in the invalid application was prohibited by s 47(3)?

Federal Court (Full Court). In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal denied the Appellant procedural fairness by finding that the appellant failed the character test on different grounds, namely ss 501(6)(c), (d)(i) and (d)(ii), without giving him any notice that it might do so. Was the error material, even though he failed the character test because of s 501(6)(a)?

Federal Court (FCA). Can a court grant mandamus by way of interlocutory relief? Does the FCA have jurisdiction or power to grant mandamus compelling...