Case Law Updates

According to the OMARA, following a complaint, it sent a notice under s 309 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the practitioner, who asked for an extension of time to respond to the notice until the lifting of the covid-19 pandemic restrictions. Were those restrictions sufficient to justify a time extension?

Federal Court: "The High Court has warned against attaching particular significance to the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - ICCPR] and its attendant jurisprudence in interpreting sections of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] which incorporate ICCPR obligations". However, can decisions of international bodies interpreting Art 7 of the ICCPR "in the context of withheld or inadequate healthcare ... be of assistance in determining when an obligation might arise in the context of deportation"?

Federal Court. If DHA identifies an AAT decision, prepares a brief to the Minister consisting of a decision record setting aside the Tribunal's decision under s 501A(2) and an invitation to circle an option indicating that he adopts that decision record as his own or to circle an option indicating that he does not set aside the Tribunal's decision, and the Minister circles the former, is this sufficient evidence to warrant orders that the Minister answer an interrogatory aimed at determining whether the Minister turned his mind to the decision? Was the interrogatory a fishing expedition?

Federal Court. In light of the High Court decision in MZAPC, is it necessary for a court to consider materiality as a separate issue after finding that an administrative decision was legally unreasonable?

Federal Court. In the context of the assessment of a person's holding of a religious belief, or adherence to a particular religion for the purpose of the protection criteria, can it be said that "what must be undertaken is questioning of that particular individual’s belief rather than the application of some standardised or assumed level of knowledge"?

Federal Court: Federal Court had held in a previous decision that, on judicial review, "where an issue goes to a legal error relevant to the exercise of [an administrative] decision-maker’s jurisdiction then it may, depending on the type of error, be appropriate to admit evidence not before the decision-maker". Here, the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, as it found that Sri Lanka was safe. If Sri Lanka then becomes safe, could it be said that the IAA's decision "became" legally unreasonable?

Federal Court (Full Court). Would exclusion based on s 5H(2)(b) result in exclusion based on 36(2C)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and vice-versa? If any part of the decision on the application for a protection visa relied upon either of those provisions, must review be sought in the General Division in order to be valid? Is the conferral of jurisdiction to review a decision 'relying on' either of those provisions a conferral of jurisdiction to review every aspect of that decision?

Federal Court. In circumstances where the applicant gave evidence that, at the time he received notice of a decision to cancel his visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), he had been processed and released from prison, and waiting in a cell, does the onus of proof shift to the Minister to establish the fact that the applicant was serving a sentence of full time imprisonment when the cancellation decision was made? If the cancellation occurred on the day of the applicant's release, was s 501(3A)(b) necessarily not met?

Federal Court. In order for documents or information to be "before the Minister" under s 473DC(1)(a), is it sufficient that they were in the possession of the Minister’s Department and therefore in the Minister’s constructive possession? Does "the fact that on the day before the SHEV interview the delegate accessed [an electronic document] mean that the [document] was before him when the decision was made"? Does the reasoning in Plaintiff M174 concerning s 57 apply to s 473DE? Was Minister required to file notice of contention on materiality?

Federal Court. Brennan J stated the tripartite test in Mabo (No 2) for determining a person's Aboriginality. That test was adopted in Love in the context of determining whether a person is an alien within the meaning of the Constitution. For the purposes of applying the 2nd and 3rd limbs of that test, can a person "be found to be an Aboriginal Australian through mutual recognition in a different society or people than the one from which he or she has descended biologically", in the absence of evidence of the laws and customs of that different society, "including particularly in relation to the existence or process of any mechanism of 'cultural adoption'"? Does the indigenous society or people have to "exist today for a biological descendent to be able to establish that he or she is not an alien"?