Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Applicant applied to FCA for extension of time within which to "appeal" AAT decision under s 44(2A) of AAT Act. AAT had decided, based on FCA decision in Lesi, that it had no power to adjourn the review, based on s 24(6)(a) of Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Applicant argued Lesi was wrong, but conceded it was not plainly wrong. If FCA allowed extension application: it could recommend that a direction be made under s 20(3) of FCA Act referring matter to FCAFC; if that was not recommended, Applicant could "appeal" AAT's decision, in which case FCA could dismiss appeal on the basis Lesi was not plainly wrong, but he would then have a right of appeal to FCAFC anyway. If FCA dismissed time extension application, that would be an interlocutory decision, meaning Applicant would need leave to appeal to FCAFC, unless time extension application itself were referred to FCAFC under 20(3). If, on a reasonably impressionistic level, there is a serious doubt about the correctness of Lesi, would that suffice for FCA to allow time extension application and make recommendation? Or would FCA also need to find Lesi was plainly wrong? Was there such a doubt?

Federal Court (Full Court): Is the obiter dicta in MZZJO authority for the proposition that a decision-maker will necessarily make a jurisdictional error if, in assessing a protection visa application, he or she relies "solely or primarily on the absence of claims from an entry interview" whose purpose is not to assess the applicant's claim for protection?

Federal Court. The then self-represented Applicant made multiple attempts before the statutory deadline to lodge a judicial review (JR) application with the FCCA's Registry. After the last attempt, the Registry refused to accept the filing document, as it did not comply with the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). Applicant eventually made a time extension application after the deadline. Before FCCA, interpreter was having difficulty understanding the Applicant. FCCA dismissed time extension application, saying nothing before it indicated it had received and refused JR application. Did the lack of a "simple inquiry of the Registry" result in the FCCA making a jurisdictional error? Was it necessary for JR application to substantially comply with the rules?

Federal Court. If a decision to cancel is made by a delegate under s 501(3A), can the Minister personally decide under s 501CA whether to revoke the cancellation?

Federal Court (Full Court): In SZFDE, HCA had held that a representative's conduct only invalidates a review under Pt 7 of the Migration Act if conduct is fraudulent and subverts the review. Here: 2 visa refusals were automatically referred to the IAA for review under Pt 7AA; the same representative purported to make submissions to the IAA on behalf of both visa applicants (the respondents); however, without the respondents' knowledge, those were template submissions copied from other cases, which said little about the respondents' cases, made arguments that related to other applicants and made generic arguments. The FCAFC was divided on whether SZFDE applied to Pt 7AA reviews.

Federal Court. Was the Minister's decision under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "legally unreasonable in that he failed to consider (or deferred consideration of) the applicant’s protection claims, despite the applicant being unable to make a protection application by reason of being barred by operation of s 48A of the Act"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "it is the proposition that “Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo (No 2)) are not within the reach of the ‘aliens’ power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution” which is the ratio decidendi of Love/Thoms"? Does the majority reasoning in Love/Thoms as a whole require a single judge to "superimpose onto the Mabo (No 2) test, which was expressed by Brennan J as the method for determining membership of an Indigenous group, a requirement to prove native title in particular land and waters"?

Federal Court: "The Tribunal provided an audio-recording of part of the hearing, but indicated that the remainder of the hearing had not been recorded due to technical difficulties". Is there a "general obligation to make, and give to the applicant, an audio-recording of an administrative hearing"?

The High Court decided whether Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] [1992]) are within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution.

The consequences of not keeping a backup of electronic files could be devastating. In this decision, the AAT affirmed an OMARA decision and found as follows: "it is clearly not acceptable practice for any migration agent to keep files and records in such a manner as to put them at risk of being totally lost or rendered inaccessible as a result of a single, simple laptop failure. It is negligent in the extreme not to have backup arrangements in place".