Case Law Updates

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Tribunal refused to release information under s 362A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), finding that disclosure was not permitted under the Australian Privacy Principle 6. Did the Tribunal make an error, in that the primary purpose of collecting such information was the same for which the delegate and Tribunal would have disclosed it, namely to assess whether the applicant was the sponsor's spouse?

Federal Court (Full Court). 1st Appellant applied for protection visa and added her children, 2nd and 3rd Appellants. Until and including AAT hearing, children had not made their own protection claims. They all attended the hearing in person. Practitioner also attended, but over the telephone, as his flight was delayed. Children were neither heard nor asked to be heard. 1st Appellant told AAT during hearing her children did not have their own protection claims and practitioner did not intervene to correct her. AAT asked for children to leave hearing room while 1st Appellant gave evidence, which they did. Practitioner did not object to that, but made post-hearing submissions including children's own protection claims. Can it be said that lack of objection and intervention meant that procedural fairness obligation in s 425 was not breached? If so, does that imply practitioners have a right to do so?

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: May ss 473DD(a) and (b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) overlap? Further, IAA refused to consider new info, saying: "The mere fact that some of the applicant’s siblings have been granted protection on the basis the applicant claims is the same as his own claims, has no probative value when assessing the applicant’s claims for protection". Did IAA, in effect, say that "in no circumstances could evidence" relating to the siblings "have probative value when assessing the applicant’s claims for protection", thus amounting to jurisdictional error?

Federal Court. Does “giving” a document within the meaning of r 5.02 require “actual delivery” to detainee or authorised person? The definition of "immigration detention" under s 5(1) includes "being held by, or on behalf of, an officer ... in a prison or remand centre of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory". Does the mere fact that a State prison can be a place of immigration detention mean that a person there held is in immigration detention? Does the cancellation of a person's visa while that person is in criminal detention itself convert the criminal detention into immigration detention? Was the Applicant's last residential address known to the Minister the address where he was serving a prison sentence? Was BDS20 plainly wrong?

Federal Court. If a decision-maker first states its conclusion and then talks about the evidence concerning that conclusion, does that indicate the decision-maker made the conclusion without considering that evidence? Does s 416 require AAT to refuse to consider the information that was before a previous AAT, or to have regard to the previous AAT's decision, or to take it to be correct? Can AAT adopt or accept the conclusion or the process of reasoning of a previous AAT in whole or in part?

Federal Court. Can it be said that a protection "claim based on the need to support one’s family is more likely to “clearly emerge” from the material given the fundamental relevance of the matter in human terms"? Does the "review material" before the Immigration Assessment Authority include the delegate's decision?

Federal Court. The Minister purported to cancel tje Appellant's visa under s 501(2), but that decision was quashed in court. The Minister then purported to cancel the Appellant's visa under s 501(3), but that decision was also quashed in court. The Minister eventually cancelled the visa under s 501(3) 'again'. Is the power to cancel a visa under s 501(3) spent if the Minister previously exercised the power to cancel under s 501(2)?

Federal Court: Applicant's citizenship was revoked under s 34(2) of the Citizenship Act 2007 and his deportation was scheduled for 19 Nov 2019. On 11 Nov 2019, Applicant applied to AAT for: review of the revocation decision; and a stay order under s 41 of the AAT Act, which gives the AAT the power to suspend the operation of the revocation decision "for the purpose of securing the effectiveness" of the review application. The hearing of the application for the stay order was to occur on 20 Nov 2019. Applicant eventually applied to FCA for judicial review of the revocation decision and sought interlocutory injunction, restraining Minister from deporting him.

Federal Court (Full Court): Minister was allowed to cancel a BVE under reg 2.43(1)(p)(ii) based on charges against the holder, despite the fact that those charges were laid before the BVE grant.