Case Law Updates

Federal Court (FCA). According to the FCA, the effect of cl 13.1.2(1) of Direction 79 was to oblige decision-makers "to have regard cumulatively to the nature of harm should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the non-citizen doing so". Does cl 13.1.2(1) require decision makers to "engage in separate risk assessments for each kind of offending in which an applicant has historically engaged"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the threshold that must be met by an application that seeks to establish that a non-publication order is 'necessary' under s 37AG(1)(a) of the FCA Act high? Do "mere embarrassment, inconvenience, annoyance or unreasonable or groundless fears" suffice? Is the Court permitted to undertake a balancing exercise? Is the possibility that the Appellant could experience some sort of difficulty obtaining employment on the basis of the publicly available judgment sufficient?

Federal Court. In deciding whether to affirm cancellation made under s 109, AAT said Department would conduct an ITOA before removing Appellant from Australia. Combined effect of ss 198 and 197C was that, if AAT affirmed Department's decision, Appellant should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable despite Australia's non-refoulement obligations. Did the removal duty have to be performed regardless of whether any ITOA process would occur?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the question whether the applicant has a reasonable explanation for refusing or failing to comply with a request made under s 91W of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a matter for the Minister to determine? Is s 91W(3) otiose? Does the phrase “reasonable explanation” in s 91W(2) connote not only that the explanation is rational, but also that the explanation is credible?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) apply to s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that the Minister had the power, after having issued an invitation under s 501CA(3)(b), to issue another invitation that was effective for the purposes of s 501CA(4)?

Federal Court. Does a judicial review applicant claiming illogicality in the decision of an administrative decision-maker need to show "extreme illogicality"? Can it be said that "inviting an applicant for a protection visa to speculate on the motivations, reasons or circumstances of a third party in the applicant’s country of nationality may be unlikely to produce probative material"?

Federal Court: Is a wholly suspended sentence nonetheless a sentence for the purposes of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Can a failure to treat like cases in a like way constitute jurisdictional error? If a merits review applicant seeks to tender copies of earlier Tribunal cases relating to matters factually similar to the applicant's matter, is it a denial of procedural fairness for the Tribunal to refuse to accept the tender?

Federal Court. Does the word "detain", as used in ss 189 and 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), mean "lawfully detain", with the result that the making of an order compelling the performance of the "duty" imposed by s 198 is not the sole remedy for an abandonment of the lawful purposes of detention contained in s 196(1) and that therefore another available remedy would be an order for the release of a non-citizen from immigration detention? Was AJL20 plainly wrong?

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. Is the fact that an applicant is self-represented before the Tribunal a relevant circumstance which impacts the question of the fairness of the procedure adopted by the Tribunal?