Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Does s 98: "extend to a visa applicant who has relied on a migration agent to complete a visa application form where the agent perpetrates a fraud on the visa applicant and the applicant wishes to establish that the visa application itself was consequently vitiated"; "fix a non-citizen with the consequences of a migration agent filling out a form with incorrect or incomplete information that may result in visa cancellation"?

Federal Court. Was the question under the definition of “serious Australian offence” whether the particular offence is “punishable by” a certain term of imprisonment, instead of whether the offender was capable of being so punished? Was the definition of “particularly serious crime” in s 5M of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) limited to a “serious Australian offence” or a “serious foreign offence”?

High Court. Should the hypothetical, fair-minded lay observer be attributed with knowledge "that barristers are professional members of an independent Bar who do not identify with the client; that judges are usually appointed from the senior ranks of the Bar; and that it may be expected they will have personal or professional associations with many counsel appearing before them"?

Federal Court. Delegate mandatorily cancelled visa under s 501(3A) on character grounds, but then revoked that cancellation under s 501CA. Applicant offended again and delegate mandatorily cancelled visa under s 501(3A) again, but this time did not revoke the cancellation. AAT affirmed non-revocation decision. Can it be said that, as earlier revocation decision formed part of the background facts against which AAT came to exercise its review jurisdiction, the facts before the AAT were not the same as those before the delegate at the time of revocation, with the result that AAT was not bound to follow that revocation decision?

Federal Court. On 10 June 2020, Flick J held that BAL19 was not plainly wrong and declared that the Minister's delay in deciding the Applicant's protection visa application was unreasonable. His Honour held on that date that it was unnecessary to issue mandamus ordering the Minister to make a decision within a deadline his Honour expected that the Minister would abide by the declaration and make a decision without delay. However, the Minister wrote to the Applicant as follows after Flick J's decision: "As the Minister has now appealed the judgment of Justice Flick, no decision will be made on your client’s visa application pending the outcome of the appeal. The Minister’s position is that s 501A is an available power in relation to your client’s visa application and that Justice Flick was in error in finding that the delay in making such a decision was unreasonable and that s 501A was not an available power in the circumstances of this matter. Any decision made prior to the resolution of the appeal as to whether BAL19 was wrongly decided would render the appeal moot". Can Ministers of the Crown be imprisoned for contempt of court?

Federal Court (Full Court). In Jul 2017, Minister determined that s 46A bar be lifted for TPV or SHEV if: a) a similar determination had been made relating to UMA's parent; and b) any application by the parent was made by 1 Oct 2017; and c) that application has not been refused and finally determined. Was the latter criterion to be satisfied by reference to Jul 2017 or the time of the SHEV application? We also summarise the court's views on the requirements of procedural fairness concerning s 46A.

Federal Court. If the Minister for Home Affairs makes a citizenship decision which is overturned by the AAT, can the Minister for Immigration bring judicial review proceedings? Section 16(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 provides that a person born overseas on or after 26 Jan 1949 is eligible to become an Australian citizen if, among other things, "a parent of the person was an Australian citizen at the time of the birth". If a person is born overseas to non-Australian biological parents and is later adopted by individuals who were Australian citizens at the time of that person's birth, is that person deemed to have been born to Australian parents for the purposes of s 16(2)?

Federal Court. In circumstances where a judicial review applicant previously brought judicial review proceedings against the same administrative decision in question, is the question of whether the subsequent application is prevented by the principles of res judicata or Anshun estoppel determined by treating judicial review as a whole as the relevant "cause of action"? Was the Tribunal entitled to consider an ITOA and its conclusion for the purpose of s 501CA(4)? Was Tribunal required to be satisfied of Art 1C of the Convention?

Federal Court. Was the Tribunal required to advise the applicant of his entitlement to seek a short adjournment so that he could provide statements from one of more of his siblings in Australia?

Federal Court. Is the grant of an injunction that interfered with the performance of the statutory duty to remove unlawful non-citizens from Australia as soon as practicable exceptional, therefore requiring there to be a strong case for the making of the order?