Case Law Updates

Federal Court. For subclass 485, must the Australian study requirement be satisfied, at the latest, on the day before the application for the visa is made? Is the date of completion of a course for the purpose of the Regulations what the education provider considers it should be? Is a course completed for the purpose of the Regulations as soon as an academic supervisor has positively assessed each unit of study?

Federal Court: this decision provides a useful summary of previous court decisions concerning apprehension of bias and the Immigration Assessment Authority

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the AAT’s exercise of discretion under s359C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) miscarried and through the failure to exercise the discretion properly the AAT failed to conduct a proper review under Part V of that Act"? Can it be said that the "AAT was unreasonable and/or that the AAT failed to conduct a proper review under Part V of the Migration Act"?

Federal Court: Tribunal can correct errors in its written statement of reasons in the General Division, but only if they are 'obvious', immaterial errors

Federal Court. Is there only one DFAT report which must be taken into account in order to comply with Direction No 84, given that the most recent report said that that it replaced the previous report?

Federal Court. While the AAT was required to treat offending of the type described under cl 13.1.1(1)(a)-(b) of Direction 79 as “very serious”, did it remain for it to allocate weight in respect of such offending relative to all other relevant considerations under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act? Are cl 13.1.1(1)(b) and (d) ultra vires s 499 of the Act to the extent that they "required the Tribunal to proceed upon the basis that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are to viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed"?

Federal Court: Section 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which is now repealed but still operative in some legacy cases, qualified some aspects of Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention. In WZAPN, the High Court held that "whether a risk to loss of liberty constitutes 'serious harm' for the purposes of s 91R(1)(b) requires a qualitative judgment". Here, the AAT found that an isolated abduction incident did not constitute a real chance of serious harm. Was that a non-qualitative finding, which thus misinterpreted s 91R?

Federal Court: Self-represented Appellant applied to FCCA, making  "reference to recognisable grounds" of judicial review, but without clearly identifying any jurisdictional errors. FCCA "generally concluded that there had been a repeated failure to 'identify any jurisdictional error'". Was FCCA's conclusion "an attempt to give content to an argument that may have some merit once properly understood"? Notice of appeal was "unhelpful". If FCA holds that FCCA provided inadequate or incomplete reasons, should it remit the matter to FCCA, differently constituted, or should it determine for itself the task of resolving the grounds of review that were before the FCCA?

Federal Court. In exercising his power under s 501BA, are the Tribunal’s reasons for decision always a mandatory consideration? Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to find that the applicant's risk of recidivism was dependent on whether he would have access to mental health treatment, which in turn depended on whether he would be eligible for NDIS treatment, and yet ignore that a decision under s 501BA would render the applicant a non-permanent resident and thus ineligible for NDIS treatment?

Federal Court. Does the phrase 'family violence' in Direction 99 have different meanings depending on the context in which it appears? Was the applicant's conduct relevant to paras 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.5 of Direction 99 only capable of weighing against him?