Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Do ss 197C and 198 "preclude detention for a period of time so that the executive can genuinely consider alternative possibilities for a person to remain in Australia"? Can a delegate or the Minister rationally and reasonably "decide to grant a visa to a person who a) has had a different visa cancelled and b) has applied for the cancellation to be revoked but has been unsuccessful"? Is there an inconsistency between the terms of para 14.1(6) and s 197C? Is the prospect of indefinite detention a mandatory consideration?

High Court. Can the discretionary power conferred by s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), having once been enlivened by circumstances leading to a failure to pass the character test and exercised by the Minister or a delegate or re-exercised by the Tribunal on review not to cancel a visa, be re-enlivened by those same circumstances? Can the power be re-enlivened by different circumstances?

Federal Court. In determining whether a self-represented person made a clearly articulated claim to an administrative decision-maker, should it be taken into account that a claim might not be drafted with the skill of practitioners?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Court set the amount of costs in migration litigation at a level that exceeds or is less than the scale in Schedule 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules)? If so, does the legislative scheme impose on an applicant for costs any burden to prove that departure from the scale of costs in Schedule 2 to the GFL Rules is justified or warranted? Can a successful judicial review applicant recover the filing fee, in addition to costs incurred with professional fees?

Federal Court (Full Court): The Appellant claimed fear of harm on the basis of: his ethnicity & religion; and non-refoulement obligations. Was the former type of harm subsumed by the latter on the basis that the latter "could not have been any less" than the former? With respect, has the FCAFC echoed the writer's views expressed in several articles that the materiality test is not binary but rather that the question is whether, had the error not been made, it could have tipped the scales in favour of an applicant? Further, in the absence of minor children in Australia related to an applicant, can that factor weigh against that applicant?

Federal Court (Full Court). In the context of an assessment under cl 820.211(2)(d) of Sch 2, can it be said "a decision-maker, in a case where the requirements of one of the Schedule 3 criteria has been found not to be satisfied, is required to consider all of the Schedule 3 criteria, and to make factual findings with respect to each element of those criteria, before assessing whether there are compelling reasons not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria"?

High Court: it was not in dispute that 'MARA may not take spent convictions into account in making [decisions under s 290(2) of the Migration Act 1958]', but the question was whether the AAT could; Discussion: are visa applicants really required to disclose convictions for which there was no sentence of imprisonment? Can the Minister take into account a visa applicant's spent conviction? Does the non-disclosure of a spent conviction really trigger PIC 4020?

According to the majority, ‘s 116(1)(a) is properly construed as referring to a state of affairs as distinct from a legal characterisation of a state of affairs’ .

Federal Court: AAT was taken to have dismissed application withdrawn under s 42A(1A) of AAT Act: s 42A(1B). AAT notified Appellant of dismissal, who then unsuccessfully applied to AAT for review of dismissal. Appellant then applied once again for review of dismissal, but AAT rejected that application as vexatious and made direction that Appellant must not make a subsequent application for review of delegate's decision without leave of AAT: s 42B. In relation to the s 42B decision & direction, was Appellant entitled to: hearing; natural justice, more generally? Does Res Judicata apply to AAT proceedings?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the terms 'end of the day' mean end of daylight hours for the purpose of the reference to 12 months' imprisonment in ss 501(7)(c)-(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), due to s 47(6) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)? Before cancelling the visa under s 501(3A), was Minister was required to make an anterior decision whether to exercise power under a different provision, such as s 501(2), and afford the appellant the opportunity to be heard about that anterior decision? Did 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 require the Tribunal to make its own assessment of the seriousness of the offending?