Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). In determining whether a "claim" estoppel arises, can different grounds of jurisdictional error be seen as separate causes of action or claims arising out of the one decision? In determining whether Anshun estoppel arises, is the principal inquiry "whether the ground of review should have been brought forward in the first proceeding, in the sense that it was unreasonable for the appellant not to have done so"?

Federal Court. Para 8.2(1) of Direction 90 read: "The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia..." Para 8.2(2)(b) read: "This consideration is relevant in circumstances where... there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence". Is a police report capable of being seen as an independent and authoritative source?

Federal Court. IAA affirmed DHA's decision and FCCA dismissed judicial review application. Appellant appealed to FCA, which heard appeal and reserved judgement on 30 May 2019. On 21 Dec 2020, Minister filed affidavit affirming that Appellant departed Australia on 13 Aug 2019, was still offshore and that his BVE ceased to be in effect. Appellant held no visa to re-enter Australia. Did Appellant abandon the appeal by leaving Australia?

Federal Court (Full Court). This decision summarises the legal tests used by the Federal Court to determine whether: to grant an extension of time within which an appeal is to be filed; to allow a party to raise a new ground of alleged error on the part of an administrative decision-maker that was not agitated before a primary judge.

Federal Court (Full Court) extends the High Court's materiality test in Hossain: 'the requirement of materiality for there to be jurisdictional error applies to a court as much as it does to an administrative decision-maker'

Federal Court: "the information before the Tribunal ... contained some hearsay rather than firsthand information". Can administrative decision-makers accept hearsay?

OMARA: "As a member of the migration advice profession, the Agent is expected to act with fairness, honesty and courtesy when dealing with other [RMAs]. This includes efficient and effective communication with other agents with respect to the transfer of client information to the new agent when the original agent’s appointment is terminated... [T]he Agent had made a written undertaking to another migration agent to provide relevant documents, and had failed to do so, in breach of clause 4.6 of the Code".

Federal Court (Full Court). Where the Tribunal affirms a decision or remits it to the original repository of the power, is it exercising a power under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that its decision is exempt from the validation provisions of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) (Amending Act)? If so, is that decision nevertheless exempt from the validation provisions of the Amending Act, as the Tribunal “did something else” within the meaning of item 2 of Sch 1 of the Amending Act?

Federal Court (Full Court). For the purposes of assessing complementary protection criteria, s 36(2B)(a) required AAT to consider whether "it would be reasonable for the non-citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm". Is s 36(2B)(a) informed by, and does it give effect to, a principle akin to the principle of internal relocation? Did AAT misinterpret s 36(2B)(a) by using as a starting point its assessment that Appellant had two "home areas", rather than directing attention to the place where Appellant was likely to return to?

Federal Court. Does the term 'before the Minister' in s 473DC(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) refer to documents or information to which the delegate has had regard? Is it "necessary for a document or information to be physically before the Minister’s delegate or for the delegate to have had regard to it on the very day the decision is made for it to be said that the document or information was before the Minister when the Minister’s delegate made the decision under s 65"?