Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Does the fact that the grant of an injunction would restrain the enforcement of the law by preventing officers of the Commonwealth from performing a statutory duty, and thereby frustrate the legislative scheme of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), provide a strong reason not to grant an interlocutory injunction in the present case?

Federal Court. This decision interprets in detail the operation of s 116(1)(e): "... the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that... the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to ... the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community".

OMARA: "It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event". This decision reviews the OMARA's views on the role of registered migration agents in the compliance with those provisions.

Federal Court: In an application for merits review to which the 84-day deadline under s 500(6L) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) applies, should the reasons provided by the AAT be scrutinised less rigorously than would otherwise be the case? Was the Tribunal required to expressly put the Applicant on notice that it would consider the impact on victims that could flow from a decision to revoke the visa cancellation, pursuant to cl 14.4(1) of Direction 65? Did the AAT misinterpret cl 14.4(1)? Note: cl 14.4(1) of Direction 79 is identical to cl 14.4(1) of Direction 65.

Federal Court. In determining whether an unarticulated claim nevertheless clearly arose from the materials before an administrative decision-maker, is it relevant that the non-citizen was professionally represented before that decision-maker throughout the process?

Federal Court. In determining non-revocation request under s 501CA(4), AAT had to consider Direction 79, para 14.5(1) of which provided AAT had to consider the "extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country)...". Does para 14.5(1) require decision-makers to "draw a comparison between the welfare systems in Australia and [the non-citizen's home country]"? Is para 14.5(1) to be applied "solely by reference to a generic citizen of the relevant home country, the characteristics of whom are uninfluenced by the particular non-citizen’s personal circumstances"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Could a conclusion that a non-citizen posed a risk of reoffending similar to other ordinary Australian residents rationally support a conclusion that the risk was unacceptable? Can it be said that "a finding that the appellant’s conduct has not been tested in the community does not establish that the appellant is a risk of reoffending"?

Federal Court. In DFQ17 and BMY18, Full Court of FCA held that, in order for a notification of visa refusal under s 66(2)(d) to be valid, it had to "clearly state" the deadline for applying for merits review. As a result, the "late" AAT applications in those cases were actually not late. In Ali, a single judge of the FCA distinguished DFQ17, holding that the notification in that case clearly stated the deadline for an AAT application. As the circumstances in Ali (i.e. email notification with deadline of 21 calendar days) reflect the vast majority of notifications sent by the Department, Ali had the practical effect of indicating that the error found in DFQ17 only applied to exceptional cases. Now, another single judge of the FCA held, although in obiter (*), that Ali does not sit comfortably with DFQ17 & BMY18 and that the latter decisions should be followed.

OMARA: [All expenses incurred for the [subclass 187] nomination application are the responsibility of the sponsor and cannot be transferred to the visa applicant"... "I am satisfied that the Agent’s text message conversation with [the complainant] was related to the facilitation of payments intended to be provided to the employer by the visa applicant for a nominated position. It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the Act to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event".

Federal Court: The rules that govern an application for injunction at first instance are not the same as those that operate on appeal. This court decision summarises the general principles that govern an application for injunction pending the outcome of an appeal.