Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 273(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the Commonwealth to refuse entry if a visitor insists on...

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "given the evidence of the applicant’s statelessness and the purpose of the abandoned child provision, irrespective of the applicant not having been born in Australia, the delegate was required to ascertain whether the applicant possessed the nationality of another country, as an essential step of proving “the contrary” under s 5(3)(b)" of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)?

Federal Court. In reviewing a decision made under s 501CA(4), did the Tribunal deny the appellant procedural fairness by failing to put him on notice of an adverse conclusion which was not obvious on the material, namely that the “best interests of the children consideration” might be a factor against him?

High Court. Is the effect of Ch III of the Constitution is to make punishment of criminal conduct exclusively judicial even if the punishment is separated from the adjudication of that criminal guilt? Did s 36D(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) purport to vest such a power to impose additional or further punishment in the Minister? If so, is s 36D invalid in its operation in respect of the applicant because it reposes in the Minister for Home Affairs the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do ss 100 or 111 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "make the question of whether the appellant’s incorrect answers were deliberate or inadvertent legally irrelevant in the context of" the discretion to cancel a visa under s 109? Are the circumstances prescribed under r 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) for the purpose of s 109(1)(c) non-exhaustive? If so, what are the types of permissible considerations?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the word "practicable" as used under s 501CA(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("as soon as practicable") mean feasible? If so, can it be said that "the question of what is feasible extends beyond the mere act of delivery of the notice and related material prescribed by s 501CA(3) to an assessment by the Minister of the recipient’s ability to respond to a notice"?

Federal Court. Does the AAT Act "require the representative to be independent of the applicant or to provide objective advice or guidance to the applicant"? Can it be said that "to conduct a review that is fair, just and economical does not require the necessary preclusion of a person who is also a witness from acting as a representative provided that by a representative so acting, the applicant is not deprived of a fair opportunity to present his or her case"?

Federal Court (Full Court): Where a conviction or sentence is the foundation for the exercise of power by a decision-maker, can a challenge be made to the essential facts on which the conviction or sentence was based? If not, is the position different in the context of s 501CA(4)? Should AAT have considered "evidence that went beyond the essential facts underpinning his conviction and sentence"? Can a decision-maker, for the purposes of s 501CA(4), refuse to accept a non-citizen's challenge to a fact on which a sentence is based, on the one hand, and use that challenge against the non-citizen in the context of assessing remorse, on the other hand? Can the difference between sentence & conviction play any role in answering whether the facts on which they were based might be challenged? Subsequent FCA decision seems to have impliedly distinguished this decision.

Federal Court. Paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provides that "[a] person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person ... is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application". Does the fact that the above provision refers to the time the "Minister" makes a decision mean that the Tribunal must assess the applicant's character by reference to the time of the Minister's decision? Or should the Tribunal make that assessment by reference to the time of its own decision? Further, with respect, does this FCA decision stand in contrast to the High Court's majority judgement in SZMTA on the onus of proving that an error was material to the decision?

Federal Court. Cl 8(3) of Direction 79 provides: "Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa". Must decision-makers make express findings on each of those considerations? When considering under cl 14.5 the extent of impediments if Applicant were removed, AAT found it "appropriate to afford the expectations of the Australian community moderate weight in favour of non-revocation", which expectations had already been considered. Was AAT allowed to double-count those expectations?