Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal permitted for the purpose of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to consider the combined influence of cll 9.4.1(2)(a) and (b) of Direction 90 as constituent parts of the “other ties” consideration in cl 9.4.1(2) and apply the abating effect under cl 9.4.1(2)(a)(i) to that consolidated whole?

Federal Court. Does s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) involve a discretion? If so, is that discretion closely analogous discretion to the discretion under s 501(1)?

Federal Court: the Appellant made a Tribunal application but mistakenly answered in the application form that he held a refugee visa, with the result that the AAT's online system did not ask for payment of the application fee. That fee was only paid after the timeframe for making a valid application. The AAT recognised the mistake was understandable given how its online system was designed, but nevertheless found it had no jurisdiction. Was the review application 'accompanied by the prescribed fee'?

Federal Court. Must the power in s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? May satisfaction of the preconditions to the exercise of the power in s 501BA arise by consideration of matters that have arisen after the s 501CA decision?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the terms 'end of the day' mean end of daylight hours for the purpose of the reference to 12 months' imprisonment in ss 501(7)(c)-(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), due to s 47(6) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)? Before cancelling the visa under s 501(3A), was Minister was required to make an anterior decision whether to exercise power under a different provision, such as s 501(2), and afford the appellant the opportunity to be heard about that anterior decision? Did 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 require the Tribunal to make its own assessment of the seriousness of the offending?

Federal Court. Did s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) allow the Tribunal to consider the "future potential costs associated with the possible incarceration of the applicant while considering the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct"?

High Court. Was the Respondent's finding of guilt as a child made without recording of a conviction, with the result that his offending as a minor was an irrelevant consideration and that the Minister's consideration of it was erroneous, even if the Respondent referred to his offending as a child in his submissions to the Minister?

Federal Court: Can an administrative decision-maker "find that a fundamentally flawed relationship could not simultaneously be a relationship in which the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life"? Can it "be said that questions raised and conclusions reached about the stability of the relationship" are irrelevant to an administrative decision-maker's assessment of the factors in reg 1.15A(3)(d)?

Federal Court. Combined effect of ss 360(2)(c) and (3) is that an applicant is not entitled to appear before AAT if s 359 applies to the applicant. Subsection 359C(1) applies if a person is invited under s 359 to give information and does not do so within the deadline. Section 363A provides that AAT has no power to permit a person to do a thing if a provision states that the person is not entitled to do that thing, unless a provision "expressly provides otherwise". Does s 363 "expressly [provide] otherwise" by giving AAT the power to "take evidence on oath or affirmation" or to "summon a person to appear"?

Federal Court (Full Court): In DFQ17, the FCAFC held that a notification letter sent by DHA did not clearly convey the deadline for an AAT application and, as a result, a "late" merits review application was actually not late. Then, the FCA decision in Ali distinguished DFQ17 by holding that a notification letter sent via email and setting out a deadline of 21 calendar days did clearly convey the deadline. Now, the FCAFC has answered whether "the fact that a notification is sent by email is ... in itself sufficient to distinguish a case from DFQ17".