Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Did the ability lawfully to revoke under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the cancellation of a visa "expire with the expiry of what would otherwise have been the duration of the term of the visa"? In other words, can it be said that the ability to revoke the cancellation did not exist, as revocation would merely restore an already expired ('stillborn') visa?

Federal Court (Full Court). Commonwealth made representations to Appellant that he was an Australian citizen by granting him a passport and enrolling him to vote. He reasonably relied on those representations to his detriment in that he never applied for citizenship and became liable to visa cancellation under s 501(3A). If Commonwealth was his guardian under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth) and breached its duty to apply for citizenship for him, did the breach, coupled with the representations, render the Minister equitably estopped from treating him as a non-citizen?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "ordinarily disclosure of the expert's report for the purpose of reliance on it in the litigation will result in an implied waiver of the privilege in respect of the brief or instructions or documents … at least if the appropriate inference to be drawn is that they were used in a way that could be said to influence the content of the report, because, in these circumstances, it would be unfair for the client to rely on the report without disclosure of the brief, instructions or documents"?

Federal Court. Cl 13.1.2(1)(b) of Direction 79 provided that, for the purpose of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), "In considering the risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively ... The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct"? Is there a "material or substantive difference between an assessment of the possibility that the applicant may reoffend and the likelihood that the applicant may reoffend"?

Federal Court. Were the tests in ss 34(2)(c) and 34(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) retrospective only, with the assessment of risk of reoffending being of little or no relevance? In such tests, is it generally permissible for decision-makers "to have regard to such deterrence as a factor in the protection of the integrity of the naturalisation process, provided that it is not associated with a substantial purpose of pursuing retribution for or denunciation of the specific conduct engaged in by the person whose citizenship is revoked"?

Federal Court (Full Court). The Tribunal made its decision after Direction 90 commenced but before Direction 99 commenced. Was the Tribunal obliged to have regard to the “change in policy” in Direction 99?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "once judgment has been reserved, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Court will subsequently give leave to a party to re-open the case"? Were the circumstances of this case, where the applicant was a self-represented litigant seeking habeas corpus, exceptional? Can it be said that "abuse of process principles can be applied in respect of repeated applications for the issue of writs of habeas corpus within a short time frame"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the ratio decidendi of Teoh extend to relevant provisions of other international treaties, including Art 12(4) of the ICCPR? If so, is the concept of "legitimate expectation" discussed in Teoh subject to any contrary indication by the legislature or executive? If so, does the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) contain such a contrary indication by the legislative?

Federal Court. Delegate refused to revoke mandatory cancellation of judicial review Respondent's visa under s 501CA(4). AAT remitted the matter to the Minister on the basis that it was "bound to obtain further information and was precluded from making a decision unless and until that further information had been obtained". Was AAT subject to an investigation duty? Was AAT bound to remit the matter to the Minister?

Federal Court. Is the question in para 8.3(4)(a)(i) of Direction 99 whether the person was successful in respect of issues such as community participation, employment, or education during his or her formative years relevant in considering whether his or her formative years were spent in Australia? Did para 8.5(2)(a)-(f) exhaustively identify the relevant categories of conduct?