Case Law Updates

Federal Court: IAA affirmed visa refusal. Its reasons included: "The report was not before the delegate... I note that the applicant has engaged a representative to assist with the IAA process; however I am not satisfied that the mere engagement of a representative can be considered exceptional". FCA said that "EMJ17 is authority to support the submission that it can be a jurisdictional error to conclude that the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of s 473DD(a) means that the discretion under s 473DC cannot be exercised in favour of getting new information". Does the IAA's decision here "[display] the erroneous view that the discretion in s 473DC(1) was confined by a requirement that 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of s 473DD(a) must exist"?

Federal Court. In Viane, the HCA said: "No part of the statutory power conferred by s 501CA of the Act obliges the Minister to make actual findings of fact as an adjudication of all material claims made by an applicant". Can the word "all" in that passage be explained by the proposition that "it is only where a matter advanced is supported by factual material and it is necessary to make factual findings in order consider the matter advanced that there is a need to consider that factual material"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can disbelief of an applicant or witness on one point subconsciously carry over to affect the decision-maker's disbelief of the same person on other points?

Federal Court. Is the validity of an application to the Tribunal under s 500 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a jurisdictional fact? By finding that the review application was out of time, did the Tribunal implicitly found that that application was invalid? Did the mere sending of a bundle of documents to the Tribunal constitute a valid Tribunal application?

Federal Court. Is the materiality test question whether the result, in the absence of error, was inevitable? In assessing materiality, would a court be usurping the statutory task entrusted to the decision-maker if it formed its own view as to what the result should have been in the absence of error?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 198AH(1A) create jurisdictional facts, in the sense of facts that a court can and should determine for itself? In determining pursuant to s 198AH(1A)(c) whether a transitory person "no longer needs to be in Australia for the temporary purpose", should the temporary purpose merely reflect the statutory language of the now repealed s 198C, namely being brought to Australia for "the temporary purpose of medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment", or should the purpose be more specifically identified?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the absence of an express finding in a Tribunal’s reasons on matters referred to in a ministerial direction does not necessitate the conclusion that no finding was made", as "a decision-maker may not refer to a particular matter because it has been found to be immaterial, or of no real significance" and as "there was no obligation on the part of the Tribunal to refer in its reasons to immaterial matters about which no substantive submissions were made, and which were not the subject of relevant evidence"?

Federal Court: Minister cancelled Appellant's visa and detained him. Appellant applied to FCA for extension of time to file application seeking judicial review of cancellation decision. FCA dismissed that application on 18 Dec 2019 and delivered ex tempore reasons. DHA was going to remove Appellant on 7 Jan 2020. On 6 Jan 2020, self-represented Appellant: filed late appeal of the FCA's decision (presumably to FCAFC); did not apply for an extension of time to appeal; and also applied for an urgent injunction to restrain his removal. By the date of the decision on the injunction application, 6 Jan 2020, FCA still had not published its reasons nor formally entered its order. Was injunction granted? Injunction application was decided by a different single judge of the Federal Court, not the FCAFC.

We have always thought that the Tribunal can expand the scope of a merits review by considering issues and provisions not considered by the Department. However, according to this landmark Federal Court decision, that is not always the case. We explain why and how practitioners can use this decision in favour of their clients in terms of limiting the scope of the Tribunal's review. By limiting that scope, clients could have 2 chances to have each issue or provision assessed on their merits, one at the Department level and another at the Tribunal level.

Mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) requires that (a) the non-citizen not pass the character test and (b) be serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time of cancellation. Federal Court: it is irrelevant when the sentence that enlivens s 501(3A)(a) is imposed or completed; the sentence enlivening s 501(3A)(a) does not need to be the same sentence enlivening s 501(3A)(b)