Case Law Updates

Federal Court. The Applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival, made a request for Ministerial intervention under s 46A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Before determining that request, the Applicant was told that he would be removed from Australia. In an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain his removal, did the balance of convenience favour the respondents because removal would frustrate the duty under s 198?

Federal Court. Would a Tribunal application to review a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be invalid and of no effect if it failed to "contain a statement of the reasons for the application", as required by s 29(1)(c) of the AAT Act, even if such a statement were subsequently provided to the Tribunal, but after the deadline for a merits review application?

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: The Minister issued a non-disclosure certificate under s 438 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the Tribunal relating to matters that were relevant to the Tribunal's decision. Can it be said that "the fact that evidence [given by the Minister] is relevant to an administrative decision does not mean that the decision maker is obliged to take the evidence into account unless it is also constitutes a mandatory relevant consideration"? Important: this decision says nothing about whether relevant information given by a visa applicant or holder is a mandatory consideration. The above question concerns only information given by the Minister to another administrative decision-maker.

Federal Court. Does the principle according to which a failure on the part of an administrative decision-maker to make an obvious inquiry can be a ground of judicial review apply both s 5(2)(g) of the ADJR Act and an analogous jurisdictional error? What are the circumstances in which a court can receive evidence on judicial review? In public law, is the jurisdictional error ground of "fraud" confined to that of the decision-maker, a party, or a party’s representative?

Federal Court (Full Court). "In light of the findings of the Tribunal (which are treated as findings of the Minister pursuant to s 43(6) of the [AAT Act]), and/or the direction of the Tribunal made pursuant to s 43(1) of the AAT Act", was the Minister "obliged to conclude that [the respondent] was not a danger and/or risk to the Australian community"? Should it be "implied into s 501(1) that a Tribunal’s earlier decision as to the application of s 36(1C)(b) is a mandatory relevant consideration on a subsequent consideration of the application of s 501(1)"?

Federal Court (Full Court). "Where it may be inferred that a Tribunal consciously determined not to have regard to extraneous and prejudicial information in making its decision, [does it necessarily follow] that the fair-minded lay observer would exclude the possibility that the Tribunal might have been subconsciously affected by that information"? In determining a claim of apprehended bias where the Secretary provided the Tribunal with irrelevant, but highly prejudicial, material in the context of Part 7 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), what is the knowledge attributable to the hypothetical fair-minded lay observer?

Federal Court (Full Court): a non-citizen was born, and was usually resident, in India. Although eligible for Sri Lankan citizenship, he was stateless. The IAA assessed his protection visa application on the basis that he was a Sri Lankan "national". The Minister argued to the Court that a person is a "national" of a country if they are a citizen or eligible for citizenship of that country.

According to the majority, jurisdictional error consists of a material breach of a condition of the exercise of a decision-making power. ‘Ordinarily... breach of a condition cannot be material unless compliance with the condition could have resulted in the making of a different decision'.

The consequences of not keeping a backup of electronic files could be devastating. In this decision, the AAT affirmed an OMARA decision and found as follows: "it is clearly not acceptable practice for any migration agent to keep files and records in such a manner as to put them at risk of being totally lost or rendered inaccessible as a result of a single, simple laptop failure. It is negligent in the extreme not to have backup arrangements in place".