Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In the context of s 34(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act, were the Applicant’s "potential subjection to prolonged or indefinite detention, or his potential removal from Australia in breach of non-refoulement obligations ... matters that might properly be described as “direct consequence[s]” of revocation, of which the subject matter, scope or purpose of the Citizenship Act implicitly required that account be taken"? Does the same answer apply to the exercise of the discretion under s 34(2)? Can a visa that does not exist be cancelled?

High Court (single Justice). Do the words 'benefits the Australian economy' in cl 132.227(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) imply a significant benefit?

OMARA: "It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event". This decision reviews the OMARA's views on the role of registered migration agents in the compliance with those provisions.

Federal Court: AAT was taken to have dismissed application withdrawn under s 42A(1A) of AAT Act: s 42A(1B). AAT notified Appellant of dismissal, who then unsuccessfully applied to AAT for review of dismissal. Appellant then applied once again for review of dismissal, but AAT rejected that application as vexatious and made direction that Appellant must not make a subsequent application for review of delegate's decision without leave of AAT: s 42B. In relation to the s 42B decision & direction, was Appellant entitled to: hearing; natural justice, more generally? Does Res Judicata apply to AAT proceedings?

Federal Court: Was the Tribunal "ill-advised" to say that it was unacceptable for the Appellant and his mother to state that the Department’s record was untrue? Could the motivation of the Appellant for entry into the relationship (i.e. to obtain permanent residency, as found by the Tribunal) be taken into account in order to determine whether the relationship was genuine? Was this a case where the "well is poisoned beyond redemption" such that 14 statutory declarations could be completely dismissed?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, the Federal Court's "jurisdiction having been validly invoked, the Court had power to grant declaratory relief as an adjunct or alternative to other relief, the source of that power being found in either or each of s 23 of the [FCA Act] and s 16 of the ADJR Act, if not also the Court’s status as a superior court of record and one of law and equity"?

Federal Court: "On my understanding of the majority approach in SZMTA in those circumstances, read with MZAOL, where there is an admitted non-disclosure of the existence of a s 438 notification, there must be a two-step process undertaken by the supervising court on judicial review to determine “materiality” so as to arrive at a conclusion of jurisdictional error".

Federal Court. In relation to Direction 79, can it be said that "the requirement to ‘generally’ give greater weight to the primary considerations means that there must be some matter specific to the circumstances of the case for giving one of the other considerations greater weight than any of the primary considerations before that can occur"? If so, must the whole case under consideration must be out of the ordinary or unusual? Can it be said that "the precise circumstances which led to the issue of materiality not being in issue may be relevant to whether the Court can proceed on the basis that there is no issue as to materiality"?

High Court. The Tribunal found that both claimants were owed protection, and remitted the matters to the Department. Then, without deciding whether to grant them protection visas, the Department granted them other visas. As per NZYQ, removal from Australia was no longer a legitimate non-punitive purpose to keep them detained. Was the processing of their protection visa applications nevertheless a legitimate non-punitive purpose to keep them detained?

Federal Court (Full Court). Cl 14.4(1) of Direction 79 required decision-makers to consider, under s 501CA(4), the "impact of a decision not to revoke" the mandatory cancellation of a visa on members of the Australian community, including victims and relatives of victims of the former visa holder. Should cl 14.4(1) be interpreted as referring to the impact of a decision to revoke, as opposed to the impact of a decision not to revoke?