No rubber stamping, yet no genuine consideration?
Federal Court. If the Minister personally makes a decision under s 501CA(4): is he required "to consider and understand the representations received" for himself, even if he is given an accurate summary of such representations; must he give "reasons as to why the expectations of the Australian community should count against revocation"? Must s 501CA(4) decisions be made within a reasonable period of time? May the ongoing validity of a decision under s 501(3A) depend upon due and prompt performance of the power under s 501CA(4)?
Is extortion, by definition, underpinned by threat?
Federal Court. Does a finding that particular harm is not serious for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act necessarily lead to a corresponding finding that it is not significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
AAT limited to issues considered by delegate?
Federal Court. Is the Tribunal "confined to whatever may have been the issues that the delegate considered"? In other words, is the Tribunal confined to considering the same visa criteria assessed by the delegate?
s 116(1)(e) interpreted
Federal Court. This decision interprets in detail the operation of s 116(1)(e): "... the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that... the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to ... the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community".
Refusal to refer cases for Ministerial Intervention exceeded executive power of the Commonwealth?
High Court. Does s 351(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) involve 2 sequential statutory decisions (the first being procedural and the second being substantive) neither of which the Minister is obliged to make? Were the 2016 Ministerial Instructions an approximation of the 'public interest' (being the test in s 351(1)), with the result that the Minister purported to entrust the dispositive evaluation of the public interest to departmental officers, thereby exceeding the statutory limit on executive power imposed by s 351(3)?
Meaning of ‘end of the day’
Federal Court. Section 47(6) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) read: "A sentence of imprisonment (or an aggregate sentence of imprisonment) starts at the beginning of the day on which it commences or is taken to have commenced and ends at the end of the day on which it expires." Do the terms 'end of the day' mean end of daylight hours for the purpose of the reference to 12 months' imprisonment in ss 501(7)(c)-(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
RMA sanctioned for lack of VEVO consent
'... Agent had accessed the personal and immigration information of a person who was not her client on three separate occasions without their knowledge or permission, using [VEVO]'
Materiality test in s 501CA(4): binary or balancing exercise?
Federal Court (Full Court). Should different passages of written submissions be considered by the AAT it in the context of the entirety of those submissions? If the AAT considers that a factor in Direction 79 weighs strongly in favour of revoking a visa cancellation, can an error in assessing that factor be material in that, had the error not been made, the factor could weighed even more strongly in favour of revocation? Was the effect of non-revocation on the Appellant's mother relevant to cll 13(2)(c), 13.3, 14(1)(b) and 14.2(1)(b) of Direction 79?
What to do if DHA want to know client’s whereabouts?
Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), a person served a written notice by the Department, requesting information that might help it ascertain the identity or whereabouts of another person, is obliged to provide that information. Non-compliance can result in imprisonment. Is an RMA obliged to provide clients' information? Does the answer depend on whether the RMA is a lawyer? If practitioners do not have the information sought, are they required to take steps to obtain it?
AAT not required to consider claim put to DHA but not to AAT
Federal Court (Full Court): 'the Tribunal is only required to consider matters that are raised by argument, or which clearly emerge from the materials. That is equally so in relation [to] matters advanced in proceedings before the Tribunal involving reviews of decisions under s 501CA(4)' of the Migration Act 1958 (non-revocation of visa cancellation)