Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In assessing the risk of a non-citizen re-offending for the purpose s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is it unnecessary for a decision-maker to descend to a level of granularity of assessing the risk of specific future criminal conduct, as that would "require the Minister to either develop superhuman prescience or engage in what could only be wild speculation which would ultimately be meaningless"? Is there a "period of limitation in the Act which might prevent the Minister taking action under s 501(2)"?

If an applicant nominates an occupation in a subclass 485 visa application form and then seeks to change the occupation before the decision, the change can only be made if it stems from a mistake, as opposed to a change of mind; The use of a "change of circumstance" (as opposed to an "incorrect information") form might suggest that the change stems from a change of mind

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal entitled to double count its assessment of the seriousness of the applicant's offending both when attributing weight to that specific consideration and again when weighing all considerations, both primary and other, in the final assessment?

Federal Court (Full Court): As mentioned in previous articles, at least 4 single-judge Federal Court decisions are authorities for the proposition that the materiality test expounded by the High Court in Hossain should not be treated as binary in nature. Now, the Full Court has said something which "might" be interpreted as treating the materiality test as binary. If that is the case, we respectfully disagree and explain why.

Federal Court. Should the Court withhold the grant of constitutional relief, for instance on the basis that the applicant’s case before the Minister was founded on the premise that Al-Kateb correctly represented the law and that the Minister should apply such law in making his decision, even though NZYQ subsequently overruled Al-Kateb?

Sanctions involving findings that practitioners have facilitated the provision of unlawful immigration assistance have become more and more common. OMARA: "I am satisfied that the Agent’s administrative staff have provided immigration assistance within the meaning of section 276 of the Act and that such was done under the Agent’s direction".

Federal Court. Was there a need for the IAA's assessment of the credibility of a letter to coincide with that of the delegate? Entry interview form for unauthorised maritime arrivals asked: "1. Why did you leave your country of nationality (country of residence)? ... 7. Were there any armed groups, political groups, or religious groups operating in the area you lived?" Was Question 1 of the entry interview form asking about reasons for not wanting to return? Could Question 7 of the entry interview form be read as eliciting information about the receiving end of conduct? Is IAA required to give reasons for why it finds an applicant lacks credit?

Can RMAs draft statutory declarations for clients or provide them with templates? If so, to what extent? Should an RMA "doubt the information provided by ... client/s, the witnesses or the Declarants or any documents that [the RMA] has witnessed”? Does the responsibility to provide correct information lie with the person making a declaration? If a client keeps a copy of the service agreement, but the RMA does not, is the RMA entitled to payments? If "the way [an RMA] has managed [his/her] practice has proven successful over the years", does that "absolve" the RMA of his/her recording keeping obligations? Can it be said that "assisting ... clients with completing their forms and preparing their statutory declaration along with the signing of the Form 956" are sufficient to comply with cl 2.8(a), according to which RMAs must confirm client's instructions in writing?

Federal Court. Was it irrational or illogical for the Minister to give significant weight to the protection of the Australian community towards his satisfaction of the national interest under s 501A(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in circumstances where, as the Applicant would not be taken into detention and would continue to reside in the community by reason of NZYQ?

Federal Court (Full Court). In the High Court's decision in CNY17: unbeknown to Appellant, Secretary gave IAA additional material in purported compliance with s 473CB(1)(c); however, the additional material was objectively both irrelevant to IAA's review and prejudicial to Appellant; IAA then wrote to Appellant: DHA "has provided us with all documents they consider relevant to your case"; IAA eventually affirmed delegate's protection visa refusal, without requesting new information or interviewing Appellant; IAA's reasons stated that it "had regard to the material referred by the Secretary", but did not refer to additional material; HCA held the giving of additional material resulted in a reasonable apprehension of bias on IAA's part. Here, IAA expressly disavowed reliance on prejudicial material. Was that sufficient to avoid apprehension of bias?