Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Did the Tribunal err in considering that paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) mandated a finding that the applicant’s conduct in obstructing police was “serious”? Did para 8.3(2) of Direction 110 direct attention to the impact on the non-citizen of the loss of any other ties to the Australian community?

Federal Court (Full Court): the Minister's visa refusal letter indicating that the applicant could apply to the Tribunal within a timeframe to be calculated by the applicant by reference to the legislative provisions (as opposed to stating the date in absolute terms) was an invalid notification; as a result, a 'late' Tribunal application was not late; this decision means that 'late' Tribunal applications including those from years ago may be reconsidered in certain circumstances

Federal Court. The Tribunal made its decision after Direction 90 commenced but before Direction 99 commenced. Was the Tribunal obliged to have regard to the “change in policy” in Direction 99?

Federal Court. Was the MOC's opinion that the costs would be likely to result in a significant cost to the Australian community in areas of health care and community services incorrect "because it included State disability services costs when in fact the NSW State disability services had been subsumed into the NDIS from 1 July 2018"?

Federal Court: In the context of s 501BA(2), FCAFC had held in Ibrahim that: Minister conflated non-refoulement with the protection obligations under Migration Act; error was material because the internal relocation principle, which formed part of the non-refoulement obligations, no longer formed part of the protection obligations under the Act. In DGI19: FCA held Ibrahim applied to s 501CA(4); but Minister argued it should be distinguished on the basis that DGI19 did not argue to Minister the difference between the non-refoulement obligations and the protection obligations under the Act for the purposes of the relocation principle; FCA did not distinguish Ibrahim, holding that it was "not incumbent on an applicant proleptically to deal with the possibility of relocation". Was Omar (first instance) wrongly decided?

Federal Court. Was Principle 6 of clause 5.2 of Direction 110 "concerned with attributing some responsibility or blame to Australia for a non-citizen’s conduct"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does a failure to perform the Secretary’s duty under s 418(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to give the Tribunal the documents that are relevant to the review invalidate a subsequent decision by the Tribunal?

High Court. "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", is it open to the decision-maker to "defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non‑refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa"?

Federal Court. Is there a serious question to be tried, namely whether the Secretary is under a duty to bring the applicant’s request for ministerial intervention under s 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the Minister’s attention? Can it be said that, although any potential harm to the applicant if he is removed is not a reason for considering that the duty in s 198(6) to remove him does not exist, harm if removed is relevant to the balance of convenience?

Federal Court. Does Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of Direction 110 recognise that a person may raise international non-refoulement obligations distinct from the statutory “protection obligations” assessed in the protection visa process?