Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was the requirement under para 9.4.2(3) of Direction 90 to consider any impact on Australian business interests, meaning that the Tribunal was not confined to interests of a particular scale or importance? Did the qualifications in para 9.4.2(3) (i.e. “major project” and “important service”) apply only where there was an “employment link”?

Federal Court (Full Court): This decision indirectly prompts the question of whether and how it possible to avoid, in some circumstances, the restraint placed on the IAA on receiving "new information". Did the Secretary breach s 473CB(1)(c) "simply on the basis that [some documents] were in the Department’s possession or control and were not considered for relevance by the Secretary"? If not, does s 473CB(1)(c) only require the Secretary to consider documents of which he/she is aware? If not, should s 473CB(1)(c) "be construed to impose upon the Secretary an obligation to take reasonable steps to locate potentially relevant documents in the Department’s possession or control"?

Federal Court. Is Direction 99 inconsistent with s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "because it [serves to prohibit consideration of] what would otherwise be a matter that a decision maker should be able to have regard to when exercising its power and discretion [namely, that the Australian community might, in fact, expect that a former visa holder in the position of the applicant should have the cancellation of his or her visa revoked]"?

Federal Court. Although the weight to be ascribed to evidence is a matter for administrative decision-makers, can a court in some circumstances "set aside an administrative decision which has failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance, or has given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance"? In determining whether an administrative decision is legally unreasonable, is it to the point that it might be characterised as cruel or inhumane?

Federal Court: Section 430 requires AAT to provide written statement of reasons for Part 7-reviewable decisions. In Yusuf, it was held as follows about s 430: "The Tribunal is required, in setting out its reasons for decision, to set out "the findings on any material questions of fact". If it does not set out a finding on some question of fact, that will indicate that it made no finding on that matter; and that, in turn, may indicate that the Tribunal did not consider the matter to be material". Does the same principle apply to s 473EA, which requires the IAA to sets out its reasons for a decision?

Federal Court. Could r 5.19(3)(d)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) only be satisfied if the nominator would not operate at a loss as a result of employing the nominee for 2 years? Was the salary of another nominee a prohibited consideration under r 5.19(3)(d)(i)? If an employment contract makes no mention on whether the terms and conditions of the person’s employment exclude the possibility of extending the period of employment, does that amount to a failure to satisfy r 5.19(3)(d)(ii)?

Federal Court (FCA). Is the FCA bound by the parties' agreement on the content of the law or facts? If the FCA declares that the Applicant is not an alien within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution, can the Applicant be removed from Australia under s 198 or detained under s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Should the FCA, in the form of a declaration, "lay down a set of rules or prescriptions to be adopted in any potential (or actual) future litigation, which are intended to control the circumstances in which a non-citizen could successfully contend she or he is an Aboriginal Australian"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the vulnerability of a particular victim because of his or her characteristics such as physical stature relative to the characteristics of the offender a relevant vulnerability for the purposes of paras 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) and 8.4(2)(c) of Direction 90?

Federal Court. In determining that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the decision because of the invalidity of the application, was there a "decision of the Tribunal under section 415" of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that the Minister had the power under s 417 to substitute for the decision of the Tribunal?

Federal Court. In DFQ17 and BMY18, FCAFC held that the notification letters under s 66 in those cases were invalid, as they did not "clearly convey" the deadlines for the respective merits review applications. Must a notification be "piecemeal, entirely obscure and essentially incomprehensible" in order to be invalid? Here, a delegate cancelled the Appellant's visa and notified him as follows under the heading "Review rights": "An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within [7] working days after you are taken to have received this letter... As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted". Did the above notice clearly convey the statutory deadline?