Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Did para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 require that there must be medical certification in order for a non-citizen’s “health” to be taken into account under that paragraph? Can it be said that para 9.3(1) applied "only to the impact on a victim of the perpetrator remaining in Australia, and excluding consideration by a decision-maker of the impact upon a victim of an offender being removed from Australia"?

Federal Court. Is the power under r 36.75(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2001 (Cth) to set aside or vary an order dismissing an appeal discretionary? What are the relevant considerations in the exercise of the power under r 36.75(2)? Can it be said that "the Tribunal, by indicating that 'it would think about' whether to seek a translation represented that it would inform the applicant one way of its consideration and allow the applicant to respond"?

Federal Court. Combined effect of ss 360(2)(c) and (3) is that an applicant is not entitled to appear before AAT if s 359 applies to the applicant. Subsection 359C(1) applies if a person is invited under s 359 to give information and does not do so within the deadline. Section 363A provides that AAT has no power to permit a person to do a thing if a provision states that the person is not entitled to do that thing, unless a provision "expressly provides otherwise". Does s 363 "expressly [provide] otherwise" by giving AAT the power to "take evidence on oath or affirmation" or to "summon a person to appear"?

Federal Court. Although the chapeaux in para 12(1) of Direction No 75 and para 10.1 of Direction No 65 refer to a decision whether to cancel a visa, are those paragraphs are about whether to refuse a visa? Although Direction No 75 is not binding on the Minister personally, is it reasonable to expect that the Minister, as a model litigant, would follow the procedure mandated for his surrogates in that direction? Does the prospect of indefinite detention no longer arise by reason of the insertion of s 197C? If so, does that mean that non-refoulement obligations will no longer be considered?

Federal Court. Was the Tribunal required to advise the applicant of his entitlement to seek a short adjournment so that he could provide statements from one of more of his siblings in Australia?

Federal Court. In considering s 501CA(4) and Direction No 79, AAT expressly accepted Applicant's minor siblings loved and missed him but impliedly found best interests of the children should have neutral weight, based on 4 factors: "the relationship between the applicant and the children was non-parental; there was no evidence he had given them any personal or financial support; for a significant period he had been in custody; and there was 'no evidence upon which the Tribunal can rely to suggest that the Applicant will play a positive or significant role in their future upbringing'". Were those 4 factors capable of entirely negating or neutralising the love children had for Applicant, with the result that they could "lead to a conclusion that the best interests of the children taken as a whole neither weigh for nor against revocation"?

Federal Court: This decision is extremely important to subclass 482 (TSS) visa applicants. Although it concerned a subclass 457 visa application, it involved the interpretation of a critical provision that is identical to cl 482.212(3). According to this decision, ANZSCO was not the only guide that could be used to determine the "skills, qualifications and employment background" that were necessary for the applicant to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. We explain how practitioners can use this decision to their clients' advantage.

Federal Court: AAT mistakenly added 1 week to the 84-day deadline for making a decision (s 500(6L)) and neither Applicant nor Minister noted it at directions hearing. Minister's advocate noted the mistake only after the actual deadline and before the mistaken deadline and notified Tribunal, which nevertheless proceeded to provide reasons for affirming the original decision. Did the AAT make a decision? Did the Federal Court have jurisdiction for a judicial review application? If so, what remedies were available?

Federal Court: The FCA summarised previous FCA and FCAFC decisions dealing with the question of whether it is an error for a decision-maker to defer consideration of non-refoulement obligations in the context of s 501CA(4) to a point in time in the future when a non-citizen might apply to a protection visa. Further, could it be said that "the argument that the applicant could face indefinite detention is flawed because, now, s 197C operates to require an unlawful non-citizen to be removed from Australia, subject only to the Minister considering 'alternative management options'"?

Federal Court. Para 13.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 79 said that decision makers, when considering whether to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory cancellation of a visa, should consider the "frequency of the non-citizen’s offending". If several offences arose out of one, overall occasion of offending, can those offences be seen as frequent? Para 13.1.1(1)(d) was about "the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes". AAT said: "To an extent, the investigatory exercise required by this sub-paragraph (e) largely mirrors that required in an application of the immediately preceding sub-paragraph (d). This is because any trend of increasing seriousness of offending is usually analogous to the regime of sentencing imposed for it". Did AAT engage in double counting?