Case Law Updates

Federal Court (FCA). Does the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of a delegate made under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Is jurisdiction "conferred on the [FCA] to consider an application to extend time under s 477(2) in proceedings transferred to it by the Federal Circuit Court"? Should a single judge of the FCA "lightly decline to follow the considered obiter dicta observations of other single judges of the [FCA]"?

Federal Court. May there be cases where, "having initially rejected a request to hear oral evidence from a person, the Tribunal may be obliged to re-consider the request having proper regard to the nature and content of evidence later given in writing by that person, assessed in light of the issues to be determined"?

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. Is the question of whether there has been unreasonable delay for the purpose of s 7(1) of the ADJR Act a matter for objective determination, the question being whether a reasonable person acting in good faith could consider the delay as appropriate or justified in the circumstances, or whether it was capricious and irrational? Can delay be justified on the basis of lack of resources?

Federal Court (Full Court). FCAFC held in Ibrahim that Minister misapprehended s 501BA(2) by believing it prohibited him from affording natural justice. Here, Minister admitted to FCA that if Ibrahim applied to s 501(3), he "proceeded on the basis of the alleged misapprehension". After admission but before FCA's decision,  FCAFC held in Burgess that Ibrahim applied to s 501(3). FCA then decided that Burgess and Ibrahim were correctly decided, but that Minister's admission was not conclusive. Was FCA wrong? Further, for the purposes of the materiality test, Ibrahim held that the judicial review applicant had to prove what he would have done had misapprehension not occurred, with which FCAFC (differently constituted) disagreed in Nguyen. 

High Court. Can it be said that "each aspect of non-compliance with s 499(2A) [of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] was a particular of the one error – a breach by a statutory decision-maker of a condition governing the making of a decision, namely statutory non‑compliance with s 499(2A) of the Migration Act in failing to comply with Direction 90"?

Federal Court (Full Court): The question to the Assistant Minister under s 501CA was whether there was "another reason" why the cancellation of the Respondent's visa should be revoked. The Respondent did not provide evidence, in his revocation request, of the circumstances which led to the offences. The Assistant Minister found, based on very limited information, that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. Was the limited information, in and of itself, a probative basis for that finding?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'the Tribunal is only required to consider matters that are raised by argument, or which clearly emerge from the materials. That is equally so in relation [to] matters advanced in proceedings before the Tribunal involving reviews of decisions under s 501CA(4)' of the Migration Act 1958 (non-revocation of visa cancellation)

Federal Circuit and Family Court. In reviewing a refusal to grant a student visa to an Indian national who sought to study cookery in Australia, the AAT said at the hearing: "I know that 99% of the cooks in India don’t come here and study". Was the AAT's decision affected by apprehended bias?

Federal Court (FCA). Can it be said that, "in the ordinary course all issues of fact and law should be determined at the one time and that the [FCA] should generally exercise the power in r 30.01 of the Rules cautiously and sparingly"?