Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Does the High Court's decision in SAAP remain authority for the proposition that "a failure by the Tribunal to comply with either ss 359A or 424A of the Act constitutes a jurisdictional error that results in the invalidity of the Tribunal’s decision", despite Hossain, SZMTA and MZAPC? Should the primary judge have refused the judicial review application on the basis that upholding that application would have no utility, as the error in question was immaterial?

High Court. The Tribunal found that both claimants were owed protection, and remitted the matters to the Department. Then, without deciding whether to grant them protection visas, the Department granted them other visas. As per NZYQ, removal from Australia was no longer a legitimate non-punitive purpose to keep them detained. Was the processing of their protection visa applications nevertheless a legitimate non-punitive purpose to keep them detained?

Federal Court (Full Court): If a student visa applicant intends to pursue PR if the opportunity presents itself, decision-makers are allowed to take that intention into consideration in assessing whether the applicant is a Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) under cl 500.212. That intention may be expected to normally lead to the conclusion that the applicant is not a GTE. However, such an intention does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. We explain how practitioners can use this decision to argue that a student visa applicant can be a GTE despite also seeking PR. Arguably, the same principle could apply to visitor visa applicants who also seek PR.

Federal Court (Full Court). The Minister found that child pornography offences for which the Appellant was convicted were "offences against vulnerable member of the community". Was the Minister referring to members of the Australian community, despite the fact the location of the children involved was unknown? Was Dunn v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 489 wrongly decided?

Federal Court (Full Court). Should the question of whether the IAA made a jurisdictional error be answered by reference to the circumstances as they existed at the time of its decision? Was the conclusion that Afghanistan had ceased to exist and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had come into existence one about which judicial notice could be taken? Was the existence of a 'receiving country' a jurisdictional fact?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "for the Minister to find that there was no material before him being evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation, notwithstanding the clear evidence of unblemished conduct of the applicant in the community in the seven years following her conviction which suggested rehabilitation of the applicant, is contrary to logic" and/or is legally unreasonable?

MARA. Does the lodgement of skills assessment applications or EOIs constitute immigration assistance? Can RMAs be sanctioned for that type of work?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does it follow from the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1 that there is "an important distinction between considering (in the sense of adverting to and understanding) the representations made by an applicant seeking the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) (on the one hand) and considering the same representations, in the sense of evaluating their significance in the course of making the decision (on the other hand)"?

Federal Court (Full Court). The respondent was notified of the intention to consider cancelling his visa under s 501(2), based on the "2008 conviction". The Minister did not cancel the visa, after which the respondent was convicted of further offences. The Minister then cancelled the visa under s 501(2), based on the 2008 conviction, but not the further convictions. Due to Makasa, the reliance on the same conviction was erroneous. Was the error nevertheless immaterial, as the further convictions (if they had been relied upon) would have formed an independent basis upon which the respondent failed the character test?

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?