Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was the question under the definition of “serious Australian offence” whether the particular offence is “punishable by” a certain term of imprisonment, instead of whether the offender was capable of being so punished? Was the definition of “particularly serious crime” in s 5M of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) limited to a “serious Australian offence” or a “serious foreign offence”?

Federal Court. In Mataia, FCA had decided that the principle in cl 6.3(5) of Direction No 79 is a not a mandatory relevant consideration. Does Mataia apply to cl 6.3(7)?

Federal Court (Full Court): Direction 65, which for the purpose of this decision was identical to Direction 79, required the Tribunal to take into account a number of considerations in deciding whether to refuse a visa under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). One such consideration was labelled the "expectations of the Australian community". Are those expectations pre-determined by the direction itself as deemed expectations? What is the content of those expectations?

Federal Court. Does s 501(10)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) apply to a formal act or judicial act or order of conviction, but not to a finding of guilt? Can it be said by reason of s 38(2) of the FCA Act and r 25.13.4 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) that, as the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) make no particular provision in respect of the time within which a writ of mandamus should be returned, "unless otherwise ordered by the Court or a Justice, a writ of mandamus must be returnable within 14 days from service of the writ"?

Federal Court. In the context of s 501CA(4), AAT said to self-represented Applicant at 1st hearing: "But what you can’t say, and what is not standing up to any sort of scrutiny, is that these police reports are not to be accepted, because Ms [L] be a little bit - or a lot - mentally unwell. If that were the case, the police wouldn’t have made the reports". At the end of 2nd hearing, Applicant was asked whether he wished to disagree with the police reports, but he answered in the negative. Did 1st hearing have the effect of directing Applicant that he could not present his case, thus constituting a denial of procedural fairness (PF)? Or did the opportunity to challenge the reports at the 2nd hearing cure any denial of PF that might have occurred at the 1st hearing?

Practitioners are being asked questions from several clients who are or have been in China recently or who intend to visit that country. Whether they will be allowed to enter Australia and whether their visas will be cancelled depend on the circumstances of those individuals, including their immigration status and where and when they have been in China. We have classified the circumstances of those individuals in 3 main groups, which we summarise in this article. We further discuss the legislative powers used to cancel visas and to prevent non-citizens (and even Australian citizens in some cases) from entering Australia. We also explain why, if the situation deteriorates, even permanent residency (PR) visas could be cancelled. Although PR cancellations seem unlikely at this stage, practitioners should consider warning clients of that risk and how to mitigate it.

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, although a court cannot scrutinise an administrative decision with "an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error", it is equally well-established that the eyes of a reader “should not be so blinkered as to avoid discerning an absence of reasons or reasons devoid of any consideration of a submission central to a party’s case"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "engaging in an active intellectual process directed to relevant evidence involves real consideration of it, not merely a recitation of parts of it without consideration of its significance or weight"?

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. If the Minister relies on an Adverse Security Assessment (ASA) rather than independently assessing the risk posed by a person, does this amount to dictation? Can the Minister consider non-refoulement obligations as part of the residual discretion under s 501(2)-(3)? Is a decision under s 501(3) or 501C(4) rendered invalid by relying on s 501(6)(g) in circumstances where the ASA is invalid? In assessing whether s 501C(4)(b) is met, is the Minister limited to considering the same sub-sections of s 501(6) which founded cancellation under s 501(3)?