Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the question of whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not reminded of the privilege against self-incrimination the same as the question of whether what occurred was “material”?

Federal Court (Full Court). In an "appeal" under s 44(1) of the AAT Act, does a misinterpretation of the law amount to an error only if it is material to the decision in question? If not, is the issue of the materiality of an error nevertheless relevant to whether relief should be refused in the exercise of the Court’s discretion? In exercising the residual discretion under s 34(2) Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), was the Tribunal limited to considering conduct or matters which had resulted in convictions within the ambit of ss 34(2)(b)(i) to (iv)?

OMARA: "It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event". This decision reviews the OMARA's views on the role of registered migration agents in the compliance with those provisions.

OMARA: [All expenses incurred for the [subclass 187] nomination application are the responsibility of the sponsor and cannot be transferred to the visa applicant"... "I am satisfied that the Agent’s text message conversation with [the complainant] was related to the facilitation of payments intended to be provided to the employer by the visa applicant for a nominated position. It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the Act to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event".

FCA: the AAT applied the wrong test under s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007 by stating that it was not comfortably satisfied that the applicant was of good character; further, 'lack of responsiveness... in providing documentation to [the Department]... is conduct that ...'

Federal Circuit Court: The risk of harm or persecution if removed from Australia 'was a matter to be weighed by the Tribunal in determining whether to affirm the' delegate's decision to cancel the visa

Federal Court: Saak held that decision-makers should be cautious before making adverse credibility findings based on the fact that a person who arrived by sea omitted a claim at an initial interview carried out just days after arrival and only made that claim later on as part of a protection visa application. Can SAAK operate much later, when the claim is first made in writing with the assistance of an RMA? Is SZTAL authority for the proposition that “no matter how poor the conditions [are] found to be” in the non-citizen's country's prisons, "they will be necessarily irrelevant to Australia’s complementary protection obligation"? Is AAT allowed to ignore claim that is not an applicant's prime focus or is contained in voluminous amount of material? Should AAT or courts consider evidence of content of foreign law? If so, can Wikipedia be used for that purpose?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Federal Court on judicial review determine whether the non-statutorily based administrative actions incidental to s 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), namely the processing by case officers of Ministerial intervention requests, are legally unreasonable? If so, what remedies are available?

High Court. Can it be said that the giving of the notice, particulars and invitation under s 501CA(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "will not be legally efficacious if those documents are given to a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions with respect to the notice and invitation at the time the notice and invitation was delivered to them, including lacking the capacity to grant an enduring power of attorney or to apply for a guardian to be appointed in relation to the notice and invitation"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of Direction 90 said that decision-makers must have regard to the fact that family violence is viewed very seriously by the Australian Government. Did para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) bind decision-makers to view family as very serious?