Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). "Para 14.1(3) of Direction 79 stated that claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by a former visa holder in a revocation request "or can be clear from the facts of the case". Did Direction 79 impose an obligation on the AAT to recognise and understand that a non-refoulement claim which, if accepted, would satisfy s 36 of Act, arose so as to evaluate whether to defer an assessment of the claim to a visa application process, instead of treating itself as obliged to defer that assessment? If so, did that obligation include such a claim that clearly or squarely arose from the material?

Federal Court. Is it "appropriate to use the shell of an old action to commence fresh proceedings including against a new party when that proceeding has been resolved"? Were answers in the form of "I don't remember" to an interrogatory administered to the Minister improper?

Federal Court: In 2018, we summarised the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA) decision in Singh that interpreted Direction 53, which is almost identical to Direction 69. Both directions provide guidance on how to assess the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) criterion for student visa applications. We kept tracking Singh for our readers and we now summarise a decision of the Federal Court (FCA) delivered yesterday on whether Singh was correctly decided. We also discuss how practitioners can use this FCA decision to increase clients' prospects of satisfying the GTE criterion in student visa applications.

Federal Court. In the context of cancellation under s 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the consequence brought about by cl 5001 of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a mandatory relevant consideration, whether or not the Applicant made claims bearing on the latter provision?

Federal Court. To form a "reasonable suspicion" under to s 189, are officers expected to have detailed knowledge of case law on the concept of 'Aboriginality'? Is it likely that "not all Aboriginal peoples will have the same law and custom governing these issues"? Was the officer's suspicion that the Applicant was a non-Aboriginal unlawful non-citizen reasonable, in circumstances where the 2nd & 3rd limbs of the tripartite test in Mabo (No 2) were satisfied? Are Stewart, EFX17, EPL20, and Sillars distinguishable if s 501CA(3) representations are received within the prescribed period?

High Court. If an officer detained an unlawful non-citizen "in the purported performance of a statutory duty to detain in conformity with the law as declared in a prior decision of this Court which has been held in a subsequent decision of this Court to have been erroneous", is that prior decision a defence to liability for the tort of false imprisonment?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'While it may be open to the Tribunal to rely on the sort of statistical analysis that it did, there are dangers in relying on such an approach when its fundamental task is to consider the risk that this visa applicant would face if returned'

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, where "there are two sets of information, going to the safety and suitability of the place of relocation, which are contradictory and inconsistent, the decision-maker must necessarily engage in a “process of evaluation” of the “reliability” of the contradictory and inconsistent sets of information so as to reach a reasoned and reasonable conclusion as to which information, or set of information, he or she will rely upon", for the purposes of ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "for the purposes of the discretion under s 10(2)(b)(ii) [of the ADJR Act], the availability of a full merits review on a de novo basis can constitute “adequate provision” for review and entitle the Court to refuse relief in its discretion"? If so, is the position "perhaps even stronger here where the appellant potentially had available to him two tiers of review in the AAT"?

Federal Court (Full Court). "In the context of an application for a protection visa, the decision-maker’s task is to respond to a “substantial, clearly articulated argument relying upon established facts” including any claim that clearly emerged from the materials". Does that apply to s 501 visa refusals? In application for subclass 201 visa, Appellant argued he and his "family" (i.e. parents and siblings) had humanitarian claims. He then married, had a child and notified DHA of that. Can it be said that, "once the marriage and the birth were notified..., there could be no proper basis for the Minister to proceed on the basis that the risk of harm to family members referred to in the earlier materials was not also asserted to be a risk to which the appellant’s wife and child"? Is subclass 201 a protection visa, with the result that, according to BAL19, s 501 should not have applied?