Case Law Updates

Federal Court (FCA). Following unsuccessful requests to be removed from Australia under s 198(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Applicant applied to the FCA for mandamus directing the Commonwealth to do so. Subsection 476A(1) provided that, despite any other law, the FCA's "original jurisdiction in relation to a migration decision" was limited to the matters under s 476A(1)(a) to (d). Is the refusal to discharge the obligation under s 198 a "migration decision", with the result that the FCA lacked jurisdiction?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "for the Minister to find that there was no material before him being evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation, notwithstanding the clear evidence of unblemished conduct of the applicant in the community in the seven years following her conviction which suggested rehabilitation of the applicant, is contrary to logic" and/or is legally unreasonable?

High Court. Can a couple live "separately and apart" even when they reside in the same home? Is it possible for a couple who maintain "separate residences" to not be living separately and apart, so long as they live as a "single household"?

'... Agent had accessed the personal and immigration information of a person who was not her client on three separate occasions without their knowledge or permission, using [VEVO]'

Federal Court. In an FCA decision we recently summarised, the Minister's application for leave to appeal from a decision where he was ordered to answer an interrogatory aimed at determining whether he had turned his mind to a decision was dismissed. In a different case extracted in this article, one of the questions to the FCA was whether it should use its discretion to refuse to grant leave to the Applicant for an interlocutory application seeking a very similar interrogatory, because of the “impracticalities” presented by the possibility of portfolio Ministers being overwhelmed with interrogatories.

Were the best interests of the Appellant's child a mandatory consideration in determining under cl 820.211(2)(d)(ii) whether to "waive" criterion 3001? The Appellant and his sponsor claimed that the sponsor's pregnancy was not planned. Was it open to the AAT to find that: the conception of the child was "motivated by a desire to bolster [Appellant's] chances of securing waiver of" criterion 3001; and thus that no compelling circumstances existed? If not, was it anyway open to AAT to find that, as the couple "chose to have a child in the full understanding that the applicant was not the holder of a substantive visa and that he might have to go offshore to lodge his Partner visa application", the AAT "does not accept that the birth ... is a compelling reason"?

High Court. Was Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203 wrongly decided?

Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Tribunal to refuse to wait for the outcome of merits review concerning the nomination of a position relating to a subclass 457 visa application before reviewing a decision to refuse to grant the subclass 457 visa?

Federal Court: when considering whether a position is genuine as part of a nomination application under r 2.72, is Minister obliged to consider the tasks of ANZSCO unit group? If not, is Minister at least allowed to consider those tasks? If Tribunal refuses to grant visa on the basis of its refusal to approve nomination and the nominator wins on judicial review so that nomination is remitted back to the Tribunal, should the Court dismiss the visa applicant's judicial review application as the visa applicant still did not have an approved nomination?

Federal Court: in determining whether an applicant satisfies the definition of 'spouse' under s 5F of the Migration Act 1958, are decision makers required to make findings of fact about each of the matters contained in each of the 4 aspects of the relationship pursuant to r 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994?