Case Law Updates

Federal Court. If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) on the basis that the person failed the character test by reason of certain offences and that cancellation is revoked under s 501CA(4), can the visa be cancelled again under s 501(3A) on the basis of the failure to pass the character test by reason of the same offences? If not and a delegate or the Minister nevertheless does so, is the AAT allowed to review the non-revocation of the second cancellation decision?

Can it be said that, whether an applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student is reached by reason only of the particular criteria in cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)? Do the words in cl 500.212(a) concern only with how long a visa applicant intends to stay in Australia? In assessing whether an applicant "is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student", must applicants satisfy each of cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)? Are some of the factors in Direction No 69 also relevant to cl 500.212(c)? Did the group introduction process at the start of the Tribunal hearing amount to a denial of procedural fairness? Should a litigant be expected to put on an appeal before being entitled to settled reasons from the court below?

Federal Court (Full Court): As mentioned in previous articles, at least 4 single-judge Federal Court decisions are authorities for the proposition that the materiality test expounded by the High Court in Hossain should not be treated as binary in nature. Now, the Full Court has said something which "might" be interpreted as treating the materiality test as binary. If that is the case, we respectfully disagree and explain why.

Federal Court. Brennan J stated the tripartite test in Mabo (No 2) for determining a person's Aboriginality. That test was adopted in Love in the context of determining whether a person is an alien within the meaning of the Constitution. For the purposes of applying the 2nd and 3rd limbs of that test, can a person "be found to be an Aboriginal Australian through mutual recognition in a different society or people than the one from which he or she has descended biologically", in the absence of evidence of the laws and customs of that different society, "including particularly in relation to the existence or process of any mechanism of 'cultural adoption'"? Does the indigenous society or people have to "exist today for a biological descendent to be able to establish that he or she is not an alien"?

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?

Federal Court. Is a random act of criminal violence "persecution" for the purposes of s 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If not, but such random acts are committed for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group and those acts are tolerated by State authorities resulting in a systematic failure to apply the law to the perpetrators, can there be persecution for the purposes of s 5J(1)?

A guidance decision indicates how the AAT (and possibly the Department) will interpret the transitional provisions for nominations made before 18 March 2018 where no corresponding subclass 457 visa application was made.

Federal Court. If the department acts upon a visa application withdrawal request, does that act amount to a 'decision', with the result that the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to review such a decision? Might there be cases where a visa application has not been validly withdrawn? If so, will the appropriate remedy will be mandamus to compel the Minister to consider the application? Will the withdrawal of a visa application be invalid and ineffective if there was no genuine intention to withdraw the application?

Federal Court. Does s 600(6H): preclude the Tribunal having "regard to" particular information, as opposed to the reception of that particular information and, if so, does it necessarily follow that "the preclusionary effect of s 500(6H) could not have justified the Tribunal’s decision to not allow the applicant’s partner to be called"; "require that the Tribunal must not have regard to information from a witness unless a written statement outlining the evidence of that witness has been provided to the Minister at least two business days prior to the Tribunal’s hearing"; always require that prior notice of the source of the information to be presented orally be given?

High Court: Unbeknown to the Appellant, Secretary gave IAA additional material in purported compliance with s 473CB(1)(c). However, the additional material was objectively both irrelevant to IAA's review and prejudicial to Appellant. IAA then wrote to Appellant: DHA "has provided us with all documents they consider relevant to your case". It eventually affirmed delegate's protection visa refusal, without requesting new information or interviewing Appellant. IAA's reasons: stated that IAA "had regard to the material referred by the Secretary"; did not refer to additional material. Did the giving of additional material result in: a material "failure of a precondition to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the [IAA] to conduct a review"; a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of IAA?