Case Law Updates

High Court. Is a visa refusal by reason of ss 501 or 501A a decision under s 65? Is PIC 4001 "void for uncertainty because it used the expression "character test" without definition"? Are delegates "bound by a prior, internally recorded view" about whether visa criteria were met? Can a s 65 officer refer an application for a decision under s 501? Can a single decision under s 65 be segmented into various discrete decisions? Are the Minister's powers under ss 501(1) and 501A(2) "spent ... if a visa should have otherwise been granted under s 65, but has not been granted"? Did the Minister have jurisdiction to make a decision under s 501A(2) even if the decision of the Tribunal was invalid?

High Court. The Plaintiffs argued that the covid-19-related Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) issued under the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) impermissibly infringed s 92 of the Constitution. The Court held that the exercise of the power given by ss 56 and 67 of the Act to make paras 4 and 5 of the Direction did not raise a constitutional question. Does this mean that the limitations imposed by s 92 of the Constitution are irrelevant for the purpose of judicial review of delegated legislation or administrative decisions made under the Act? One of the judgements arguably answered that question in a novel way.

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said, based on a single judge FCA decision, that the "principles of legal unreasonableness, in the sense considered in Li, have no application in the review of a decision... as to the existence of certain facts that satisfy statutory criteria", but only to the review of a discretionary power? Summary of principles concerning review of: state of satisfaction under s 65 for illogicality and irrationality; adverse credibility findings. Can it be said that "the psychological reactions of a couple to their first sexual encounter are matters of common human experience"? Or do those reactions need to be supported by evidence such as psychological evidence? Can it be said that, "if two people give a different account of an event and the evidence of one is rejected, that does not provide a logical basis on which to reject the evidence of the other"?

Federal Court: "There are a number of troubling aspects of the Tribunal’s reasoning which could, at an impressionistic level at this stage, give rise to a successful appeal. Just by way of example, they include the following... The Tribunal appears to have held it against the applicant that he failed to provide explicit photographs of him and his partner engaging in homosexual sex to prove that he is homosexual".

High Court (single Justice). In determining whether to grant the plaintiff a time extension to file his judicial review application, does he disclose an arguable basis for relief in arguing that the delegate made an error in treating a Code 35 NPC as not satisfying the request?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does s 198AH(1A) create jurisdictional facts, in the sense of facts that a court can and should determine for itself? In determining pursuant to s 198AH(1A)(c) whether a transitory person "no longer needs to be in Australia for the temporary purpose", should the temporary purpose merely reflect the statutory language of the now repealed s 198C, namely being brought to Australia for "the temporary purpose of medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment", or should the purpose be more specifically identified?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the existence of unreasonable or even very harsh conditions in a third country is not a basis to disengage s 36(3), unless the circumstances in subss (4), (5) or (5A) exist"? If so, is "an interpretation of the phrase “right to enter and reside” which incorporates some limited form of qualitative assessment" precluded? If so, would a person "entering a refugee camp, or a camp for displaced persons, where their freedom would be confined and they would be dependent (for example) on international aid" have the right to reside in the country?

Federal Court. Were the applicant’s offending and risk of re-offending matters properly able to be considered as part of the evaluation of the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia? Did the Tribunal double count its assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending and the risk of re-offending?Federal Court. Were the applicant’s offending and risk of re-offending matters properly able to be considered as part of the evaluation of the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia? Did the Tribunal double count its assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending and the risk of re-offending?

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 Applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival, made a request for Ministerial intervention under s 46A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Before determining that request, the Applicant was told that he would be removed from Australia. In an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain his removal, did the balance of convenience favour the respondents because removal would frustrate the duty under s 198?