Case Law Updates

High Court. Can it be said that it is "not reasonably open to a decision maker, when exercising their discretion to cancel a visa under s 116 of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)], to take into account a failure to respond to an NOICC [Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation] in a manner adverse to a visa holder, as there is no legal requirement for a person to respond to such a notice"?

Federal Court (Full Court): A person fails the character test under s 501(6)(b) if they have been a member of, or have been associated with, a group, organisation or person that has been involved in criminal conduct. Does the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 set up a presumption that a piece of legislation that is silent about its territorial operation, as is the case with s 501(6)(b), only applies within Australia? If so, does the object of the Migration Act 1958 rebut that presumption?

Federal Court: 'The statutory scheme ... contains no indication that the application process might be kept on foot at the election of an applicant by the applicant exercising a “right” ... to keep re-sitting the ... Test'

Federal Court. Can it be said that ss 362B(1A), (1B), (1C), (1D), (1E), (1F) and (1G) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "are not an exhaustive statement of the steps the Tribunal might take in circumstances of non-appearance at a hearing as s 362B expressly preserves by s 362B(2) the power of the Tribunal to make a decision to reschedule the applicant’s appearance before it or to delay its decision on the review in order to enable the applicant to appear before it at a rescheduled hearing"?

Federal Court. Did s 501G(3) satisfy the phrase in s 494A(1)(b)(ii) of a provision that "does not state that the document must be given ... by a method prescribed for the purposes of giving documents to a person in immigration detention”? If s 494A(1) applied, did ss 494B(5)(b) and (d), 494C(1) and (5) and s 494D(1) apply? Did the word “giving” in r 5.02 imply a requirement to hand a written notice of the delegate’s non-revocation decision personally to either the applicant or his solicitor? If not and the written notice occurs by email, must it be actually received to satisfy r 5.02?

Federal Court. Was the Applicant inhibited in his task of seeking judicial review within the 35-day statutory deadline, because the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal followed 21 days after the decision was made? Is it for the Court to set to one side a clearly expressed conclusion by the Tribunal on the basis that it may be a mistake?

Federal Court. In determining whether an unarticulated claim nevertheless clearly arose from the materials before an administrative decision-maker, is it relevant that the non-citizen was professionally represented before that decision-maker throughout the process?

Federal Court. Are there situations where a lack of resources may explain the period taken to make a decision under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), but where the decision still has not been made within a reasonable time?

Federal Court (Full Court) extends the High Court's materiality test in Hossain: 'the requirement of materiality for there to be jurisdictional error applies to a court as much as it does to an administrative decision-maker'

Federal Court. In BAL19, FCA decided that s 501 and PIC 4001 do not apply to protection visa applications. Can DHA delay making a decision on protection visa applications on the basis that it disagrees with BAL19 and is appealing that decision? Was FCA's decision in BAL19 plainly wrong? Does s 501(3A) apply to the cancellation of protection visas? Does s 501 operate independently from s 65? If the delay is not justified and BAL19 was not plainly wrong, should FCA issue a writ of mandamus, requiring DHA to consider according to law the protection visa application on the basis that s 501(1) does not empower the refusal of the application?