Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). FCAFC held in Ibrahim that Minister misapprehended s 501BA(2) by believing it prohibited him from affording natural justice. Here, Minister admitted to FCA that if Ibrahim applied to s 501(3), he "proceeded on the basis of the alleged misapprehension". After admission but before FCA's decision,  FCAFC held in Burgess that Ibrahim applied to s 501(3). FCA then decided that Burgess and Ibrahim were correctly decided, but that Minister's admission was not conclusive. Was FCA wrong? Further, for the purposes of the materiality test, Ibrahim held that the judicial review applicant had to prove what he would have done had misapprehension not occurred, with which FCAFC (differently constituted) disagreed in Nguyen. 

Federal Court. Can it be said that "it is the proposition that “Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo (No 2)) are not within the reach of the ‘aliens’ power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution” which is the ratio decidendi of Love/Thoms"? Does the majority reasoning in Love/Thoms as a whole require a single judge to "superimpose onto the Mabo (No 2) test, which was expressed by Brennan J as the method for determining membership of an Indigenous group, a requirement to prove native title in particular land and waters"?

Federal Court: the Appellant made a Tribunal application but mistakenly answered in the application form that he held a refugee visa, with the result that the AAT's online system did not ask for payment of the application fee. That fee was only paid after the timeframe for making a valid application. The AAT recognised the mistake was understandable given how its online system was designed, but nevertheless found it had no jurisdiction. Was the review application 'accompanied by the prescribed fee'?

High Court. Do the verbs "give" and "invite" in s 501CA(3) require that regard be had to the circumstances of the recipient? Must the information and invitation be given by the Minister, or a delegate, personally? Did the timeframe of 28 days within which to make a revocation request under s 501CA(4) run from the date the invitation was sent via email to the immigration detention centre, instead of when it was handed to the respondent a day later? By incorrectly stating the 28 days by reference to the date of the email, was the invitation invalid? Can an analogy be drawn with DFQ17 ?

Federal Court. For the purpose of s 501(6)(c)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can the communication of a belief, or the existence of an uncommunicated belief, be considered "present general conduct"? Further, there are 2 incidents of the common law procedural fairness rule: 1) to give an affected person an opportunity to comment on adverse material obtained from other sources; 2) to identify to them issues not obviously open on the known material. Were these incidents excluded by s 51A(1)?

Federal Court. Cl 8(3) of Direction 79 provides: "Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa". Must decision-makers make express findings on each of those considerations? When considering under cl 14.5 the extent of impediments if Applicant were removed, AAT found it "appropriate to afford the expectations of the Australian community moderate weight in favour of non-revocation", which expectations had already been considered. Was AAT allowed to double-count those expectations?

Federal Court. Generally speaking, a person does not lose Australian citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country. However, there are exceptions. For instance, in some circumstances, a person who once was an Australian citizen is not an Australian citizen under the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) if they became a citizen of PNG by reason of the PNG Constitution. In this particular decision, did the Applicant become a PNG citizen by reason of the PNG Constitution and therefore lose his Australian citizenship?

Federal Circuit and Family Court. The AAT's reasons copied many passages from the reasons of the very decision under review. Did the AAT fail to turn its own independent mind to the consideration of the case? Did the lack of disclosure of its intended reliance on those passages amount to a denial of procedural fairness?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'While it may be open to the Tribunal to rely on the sort of statistical analysis that it did, there are dangers in relying on such an approach when its fundamental task is to consider the risk that this visa applicant would face if returned'

High Court. Is the threshold of materiality additionally required to be met for every breach of every condition of a conferral of statutory decision-making authority to result in a decision being vitiated with jurisdictional error? Does the applicant in an application for judicial review "bear the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities all the historical facts necessary to sustain the requisite reasonable conjecture" called for by the materiality test?