Case Law Updates

Federal Court: Applicant applied to FCCA for judicial review of IAA's decision and for extension of time within which to file that judicial review application. FCCA found that: extension should not be granted "on the ground of inadequate explanation alone"; there was no merit in the judicial review application. As FCCA's decision to refuse to grant time extension was not appealable, Applicant applied to FCA for judicial review that decision and had to show FCCA made a jurisdictional error. FCA held that FCCA erred in holding that judicial review application lacked merit. Was that error jurisdictional? Does the materiality test apply to the determination of whether a court made a jurisdictional error?

Federal Court. As the decision that the applicant sought to compel by mandamus was made favourably to him, with the result that he obtained the practical outcome he pursued, should he be awarded costs? If so, should those costs be offset by costs which the applicant was awarded to pay in a previous court proceeding?

Federal Court. Although the weight to be ascribed to evidence is a matter for administrative decision-makers, can a court in some circumstances "set aside an administrative decision which has failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance, or has given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance"? In determining whether an administrative decision is legally unreasonable, is it to the point that it might be characterised as cruel or inhumane?

The High Court decided whether Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] [1992]) are within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution.

FCA: the AAT applied the wrong test under s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007 by stating that it was not comfortably satisfied that the applicant was of good character; further, 'lack of responsiveness... in providing documentation to [the Department]... is conduct that ...'

Federal Court. In determining under s 362B(1C)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) whether it was "appropriate" to re-instate a Tribunal application dismissed for non-appearance at the hearing, were "the merits of the substantive application, and in circumstances where the application was dismissed for a failure to appear at a hearing, the explanation for it", relevant considerations?

High Court. In determining whether removal to a country is practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, can the steps practically available to be taken "be expected frequently to include administrative processes directed to removal which require the cooperation of the detainee and in which the detainee has the capacity to cooperate"?

Federal Court. Is it for a court to judge, pursuant to s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), whether "an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen", "based on the entirety of the evidence before it and not just the evidence that may have been available to the detaining officers"?

Federal Court. Applicant's visa was cancelled under s 501(3A). Delegate refused to revoke cancellation under s 501CA(4). AAT: found it had jurisdiction to review delegate's decision; erroneously found revocation request had not been made by deadline; thus, found that neither AAT nor delegate had power to revoke; nonetheless found that, had it been made by deadline, it would have affirmed delegate's decision, based on its opinion that there was not "another reason" to revoke cancellation; set aside non-revocation decision; and remitted matter to Minister with a direction that the cancellation decision not be set aside. Was AAT's error not jurisdictional, given its opinion that there was not "another reason"?

Federal Court (Full Court). As good character was not required when the Appellant was granted citizenship as a minor, should the Court "distinguish Jones on the basis that the power to revoke his citizenship based on the commission of a serious offence before he became an Australian citizen is not reasonably capable of being seen as necessary to protect the integrity of the naturalisation process, and is therefore properly characterised as punitive in nature"?