Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Must the power in s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? May satisfaction of the preconditions to the exercise of the power in s 501BA arise by consideration of matters that have arisen after the s 501CA decision?

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"?

Federal Court (Full Court): although the Tribunal informed the Appellant about the existence of confidential information, it did not inform her about the existence of a non-disclosure certificate; that was an error; the question was whether that error was jurisdictional; that depended, to some extent, on whether the Appellant should have have requested further detail of the confidential information that was not covered by the non-disclosure certificate

Although the AAT will defer dealing with late applications in the MRD pending an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, that does not necessarily mean that late applicants should defer lodging their review applications any further

Federal Court: Cl 8(4) of Direction 65 provided: "Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations". AAT quoted that clause but eventually noted "the requirement that primary considerations should be given greater weight than the other considerations". Did AAT misinterpret cl 8(4)? Did AAT misinterpret cl 14.2(1)(a) by saying it was required to place less weight on how long the Applicant had resided in Australia "because of the limited positive contribution to the Australian community"? If so, was that error material? Is materiality a binary or balancing test? Despite Applicant's clearly articulated claim regarding the impact non-revocation would have on his family, pursuant to cl 14.2(1)(b), AAT made no finding in that regard. Should FCA infer from AAT's recitation of 14.2(1)(b) that it considered that claim? Did AAT misinterpret DHA's warning letter to Applicant?

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. The Applicant was an NZYQ-affected BVR holder. Was it "not necessarily irrational or illogical to consider the provisions of the Direction on the basis that cancellation of the applicant's Global Special Humanitarian visa would remove his entitlement to stay in Australia thereby requiring his removal, provided the Tribunal also separately and sufficiently brought to account the additional consideration relevant to the applicant, namely that, in all likelihood, he would remain in Australia under different visa arrangements"?

Federal Court. If the Tribunal suggests that it will consider only a subset of the issues considered by the delegate but in reality also considers other issues considered by the delegate, is it under an obligation under s 360(1) to "invite the applicant to give evidence and present arguments relating to [those other] issues"?

Federal Court. Is the privilege against self-incrimination a fundamental common law right or merely a rule of evidence only available in court proceedings? Do the AAT Act or the Migration Act give merits review applicants the privilege against self-incrimination? Is AAT required to warn self-represented applicants about the invocation of the privilege? We summarise that and several other questions.

According to a landmark Federal Court (FCA) decision which we summarised in Jan 2020, the Tribunal could not consider issues and provisions not considered by the Department. Both the Minister and the non-citizen appealed that decision to the Full Court of the FCA (FCAFC). Was the FCA decision wrong? What are the principles by which the FCAFC might determine whether or not to proceed to hear an appeal where the substantive issues on appeal have become moot?