Case Law Updates

Federal Court: AAT affirmed non-revocation of visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958. AAT was bound by Direction 65, cl 14.1(2) of which was identical to cl 14.1(2) of Direction 79. Was it necessary for AAT to sever the following part of cl 14.1(2) in order to align that paragraph with s 197: "Australia will not remove a non-citizen, as a consequence of the cancellation of their visa, to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists"? Did AAT misinterpret cl 13.1.1(1)(b), which is identical to cl 9.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 79?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the question of the materiality of an error typically (although perhaps not necessarily) arise only once a court is satisfied that the administrative decision-maker exceeded its jurisdiction in some way? Is an administrative decision-maker "relieved of its obligation to consider [a person's] contentions simply because they were not made good on the evidence"?

Federal Court. Is there a distinction between embarking on the evaluative task in circumstances where a discretion is being exercised such as in s 501(1) and one in which there is no discretion such as in s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). If the Tribunal was required to make a decision under the former but did so by reference to the latter provision and that involved an error, was the error material?

Federal Court. In deciding under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, the Minister found that "Australia has a low tolerance of criminal conduct for people…who have been participating in, and contributing to, the community only for a short period". Should that finding "be understood as a concrete factual finding reflective of some impossible synthesis or amalgamation of the views held collectively by the Australian community"?

Federal Court. Minister found that child pornography offences for which Applicant was convicted were "offences against vulnerable member of the community". Was the Minister referring to members of the Australian community, despite the fact the location of the children involved was unknown? When deciding under s 501CA(4) whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, was Minister required to consider that Applicant also held at the same time another visa that would be cancelled by operation of s 501F(3)?

Federal Court: the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA) made an interlocutory decision to dismiss the Applicant's judicial review application, despite the fact that the Applicant had informed the FCCA that his lawyer had withdrawn from his case the day before the FCCA hearing. Did the Applicant constructively apply for the FCCA hearing to be adjourned by informing it about the claimed lawyer withdrawal? If so, does the same principle apply to AAT hearings?

Federal Court (Full Court). Appellant applied to FCCA for judicial review (JR) and extension of time within which to apply for JR. In dismissing time extension application, FCCA engaged in more than an impressionistic evaluation of merits of proposed grounds of review. Did FCCA make jurisdictional error by doing so? Can FCCA hear applications under ss 476 and s 477(2) together? Was the FCCA's error not material in that, had it not misconceived s 477(2), it would have decided the JR application against Appellant anyway?

Federal Court (Full Court): In the context of s 501CA(4), was the Appellant's prohibition upon his ability to return to Australia by reason of cl 5001(c) of Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a legal or a practical consequence of a non-revocation decision? Was that consequence a mandatory relevant consideration? Does the process of statutory construction of the Migration Act "permit of some consequences being more immediate than others"? Does a decision made under cl 5001(c) lack "legal proximity" to decisions made under the Act? The FCAFC was divided on several issues.

Federal Court. The Applicant was found to be owed protection, but had his protection visa application refused for character reasons. He was a person within the cohort affected by NZYQ, meaning that he could not be held in immigration detention while removal from Australia remained impracticable in the reasonably foreseeable future. As such, he was granted a BVR. Was the Tribunal required to compare the risk to the Australian community as between holding the BVR and a protection visa?

Federal Court (Full Court). Section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) provides that the Attorney-General may issue "Legal Services Directions" that are to apply generally to Commonwealth legal work. Section 55ZG provides that some persons or bodies such as the Commonwealth "must comply with Legal Services Directions". Is a breach of one of those directions, the Model Litigant Principles, actionable?