Case Law Updates

Federal Court: as reported by Migration Law Updates in Dec 2018, the Federal Circuit Court had held that the reference to "2 years" under reg 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994 was linked to the "medical condition", not the "assistance" to be provided by the carer. That decision was appealed.

Federal Court. Is a failure to disclose other judicial proceedings upon commencement of a proceeding in relation to a tribunal decision fatal to the latter proceeding?

Federal Court (Full Court): a non-citizen was born, and was usually resident, in India. Although eligible for Sri Lankan citizenship, he was stateless. The IAA assessed his protection visa application on the basis that he was a Sri Lankan "national". The Minister argued to the Court that a person is a "national" of a country if they are a citizen or eligible for citizenship of that country.

Federal Court (Full Court): In the context of s 501CA(4), was the Appellant's prohibition upon his ability to return to Australia by reason of cl 5001(c) of Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a legal or a practical consequence of a non-revocation decision? Was that consequence a mandatory relevant consideration? Does the process of statutory construction of the Migration Act "permit of some consequences being more immediate than others"? Does a decision made under cl 5001(c) lack "legal proximity" to decisions made under the Act? The FCAFC was divided on several issues.

Federal Court. AAT set aside delegate's decision to refuse protection visa and granted Respondent a visa. Minister applied to FCA for judicial review, claiming AAT had no jurisdiction to grant the visa. Minister also made interlocutory application for matter to be expedited and kept Respondent in detention despite visa grant. Respondent made interlocutory application for his immediate release, on the basis that he was being unlawfully detained. Should FCA expedite the hearing of the Minister's judicial review application? Did FCA have jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's interlocutory application for release? Did FCA have the power to issue writ of habeas corpus? Was Respondent unlawfully detained after Tribunal granted him a visa?

Federal Court. A visa application is only made once the VAC is received. This decision confirms that VACs paid by funds transfer (e.g. BPAY) are "taken not to have been received until the payment is electronically matched to the applicant's Internet application form". As the Court interpreted the relevant legislation (including reg 2.12JA) the same way RMAs have for 16 years, there is no reason to be alarmed by this decision.

OMARA: "The Agent claimed that the nominated position was advertised on multiple platforms. The claimed advertising occurred after the employer and nominee attended the consultation with the Agent ... It is implausible that an employer would advertise a position for which they had already found a suitable candidate. As such, I am satisfied that [the complainant] was not genuinely recruited for the nominated position". With respect, can a nominator satisfy r 5.19(12)(c) without advertising the position?

Federal Court: Although this case concerned a non-migration matter, it might be relevant to migration matters. Applicant applied to AAT for review of original decision. Applicant applied to AAT's Registrar to issue summonses. Registrar refused to do so and referred matter to an AAT member, who issued "Directions on Preliminary Issues" refusing the request to issue summonses. Did that direction constitute a decision under s 44(1) of the AAT Act, which would therefore be "appealable" to the FCA?

Federal Court: In Appellant S395, HCA had held that Tribunal made an error by "focusing on an assumption about how the risk of persecution might be avoided" if S395 changed behaviour by not living openly as homosexual. Appellant in the present case stopped believing in Islam and became agnostic, after which he was discreet about his agnostic views and applied for protection. The principal reason for being discreet was that he saw no reason to propagate his views. Another reason was that his mother had "asked him to be careful about speaking out about his ... views". Was it open to the IAA to find that, given Appellant's choice not to proselytise his agnosticism, he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution?

Federal Court: 86-year-old UK national Appellant had visa mandatorily cancelled and applied for a protection visa, claiming he had several health conditions, including a major depressive disorder. He provided a medical letter stating that, if returned to the UK, he was at high risk of suicide. He claimed he was owed complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) in that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed, he would suffer significant harm by being arbitrarily deprived of his life pursuant to s 36(2A)(a). Is s 36(2A)(a) restricted to the risk of being deprived of life by a third party? If so and if the UK did not prevent his suicide, would that constitute arbitrary deprivation of life? If so, did the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in not assessing what would be the UK’s response to the risk of suicide?