Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Appellant denied procedural fairness in that "the Minister or the Minister’s delegate decided to exercise the cancellation power in s 501(3A) rather than 501(2) [of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] when the latter requires the person affected to be given an opportunity to be heard before the power is exercised whereas the former does not"?

Federal Court. Once an act is made to detain a person under s 189 of the Migration Act 1958, is the continuation of that detention also an act under s 189? If so, is the continued detention of a person under s 189 a "migration decision", with the result that the FCA does not have original jurisdiction in an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus? If so, does the FCA have a residual original jurisdiction to determine whether a habeas corpus applicant is a person to whom s 189(1) can validly apply? Can 189(1) be applied by reference to a hypothetical officer? Was the Applicant "born in Australia" for the purposes of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, despite being born in the Cook Islands? Was the Applicant an Aboriginal Australian? Were enrolment on the Commonwealth electoral roll and the issue of an Australian passport determinative of whether Applicant was a citizen?

One of the complaints against the practitioner came from the Department and was described by the OMARA as follows: "The Former Agent deliberately lodged invalid visa applications to prolong [a client's]  stay [in Australia] and to allow time to meet the visa requirements".

Federal Court (Full Court): An error is only jurisdictional if material and only material if, had it not been made, the decision could have been different (HCA: Hossain). Materiality is a question of fact in respect of which judicial review applicants bear the onus of proof (HCA: SZMTA). It was incumbent on the appellant to demonstrate what would have occurred had the error not been made (FCAFC: Ibrahim). Differently constituted, the FCAFC disagreed with that aspect of Ibrahim, distinguished SZMTA and Hossain and reconciled the latter 2 cases with WZARH.

Federal Court. In Davis, the High Court held that, in the 2016 Ministerial Guidelines issued in relation to section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the factors that the Department was instructed to assess and balance operated as "an approximation of the public interest". Did the 2016 Ministerial instructions issued in relation to s 195A also operate as "an approximation of the public interest"?

Federal Court. Are decision-makers required to identify the precise respects in which information is false or misleading? Can the question of whether a person provided "false or misleading information in a material particular" within the meaning of PIC 4020 be answered by a court? In order for the "false or misleading in a material particular" limb of PIC 4020 to be enlivened against a visa applicant, must the applicant have knowledge that the information is false or misleading? If so, are decision-makers required to identify knowledge as a requirement and make an express finding about the matter? Does the materiality threshold involve a question of whether the chances of a different outcome in the absence of error would have been "slim"?

Federal Court: Applicant applied to AAT for review of non-revocation of visa cancellation. Hearing was scheduled for 2 weeks before 84-day deadline. Under ss 500(6H)/(6J), AAT could not accept evidence provided in support of Applicant's case unless it had been provided in writing to Minister and AAT at least 2 business days before hearing. Applicant's partner sent AAT an email with declaration in support of his case just a few minutes before hearing. At hearing, AAT said it was precluded by law from considering partner's declaration, but did not refer to the possibility of an adjournment, for which Applicant did not apply. AAT affirmed non-revocation and its decision record gave reasons for refusal to adjourn, including s 500(6H) and 84-day deadline. Did AAT make a jurisdictional error?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "if it is common ground between parties that a particular fact is so, then it is a denial of procedural fairness for an administrator, for example, the Tribunal, to depart from that position without giving each party an opportunity to make submissions on that subject; in other words, ambushing by a decision-maker can amount to jurisdictional error"?

Federal Court: The Appellant provided the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) with untranslated documents. Was the IAA required to obtain a translation of those documents?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the non-revocation notice "substantially complies with the requirement in s 501G(f)(ii) of the Migration Act despite the omission in this case of an explanation of the effect of s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act"?