Case Law Updates

Federal Court. In a balancing exercise involving s 501CA(4) and Direction No 79, although almost all factors went in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, the balance ultimately tilted against revocation. Does the fact that almost all factors went in favour of revocation deny the materiality of any errors made by AAT? In other words, could it be said that the materiality test involved a balancing (not binary) exercise in that, had the error not been made, even more weight could have been placed in favour of the Applicant, which in turn could have tilted the balance in his favour?

Federal Court (Full Court): Applicant did not appear at FCCA hearing, which dismissed a judicial review application under r 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules. FCCA assessed application for reinstatement of the judicial review application under r 16.05(2)(a), taking into account only one aspect of potentially relevant considerations: whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. FCCA refused to reinstate. Appellant applied to the Federal Court for leave to appeal the FCCA's decision, arguing that FCCA's failure to take into account other considerations amounted to error.

Federal Court. In BAL19, FCA decided that s 501 and PIC 4001 do not apply to protection visa applications. In BFW20, FCA held that BAL19 was not plainly wrong and that DHA could not delay making a decision on protection visa applications on the basis that it disagrees with BAL19 and is appealing that decision. Minister then appealed FCA's decision in BFW20 and applied for a stay of FCA's orders as part of that appeal. Minister argued that, unless a stay was given, he would have to grant a visa on the basis that s 501 did not apply and that, as visa grant is not something that can be undone, the subject matter of the stay application would be destroyed. Should FCA's orders be stayed?

Federal Court: The AAT received 2 non-disclosure certificates under s 375A, but only disclosed the existence of the first. The second certificate referred to the MRT, although the MRT had already amalgamated into the AAT. The appellant argue, among other things, that had he known about the existence of the second certificate, he could have argued: that it was invalid as it referred to the abolished MRT; that even if it were valid, he could have argued for a favourable discretion to disclose the content covered by it. Does a discretion really exist?

Federal Court (Full Court). If the decision-maker assesses cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) as not satisfied, is it required to consider whether cll 500.212(b) or (c) are satisfied?

Federal Court (Full Court). In Katoa, the High Court held that, in determining whether to extend time under s 477A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Federal Court was not limited to a reasonably impressionist level of assessment of the merits of the judicial review application. Does Katoa apply to s 477?

Federal Court: Could it be said that, once a visa application form is first drafted on a particular date, it cannot "thereafter be altered and that its form [is] forever fixed as at that date"? If, while a non-citizen is in the migration zone, the Minister considered an invalid protection visa application to be valid and refused to grant the visa, is the non-citizen barred under s 48A from making further protection visa applications while in the migration zone? Does the s 48A bar apply to non-citizens who are making a new protection visa application as secondary applicants?

Federal Court. Delegates refused 2 requests made under s 7 of the Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Overseas Travel Ban Emergency Requirements) Determination 2020 (Cth). Section 7 provided that an exemption to the travel ban may be granted to an AU citizen or PR in exceptional circumstances, which are demonstrated by providing a compelling reason for needing to leave Australia. Does s 7(2) exhaust the concept of exceptional circumstances? Does the delegate's use of the language of “critical” reason rather than “compelling” reason indicate error? Do the situations which indicate a need for compassion to be exercised fall within the concept of “exceptional circumstances"? Does s 7 call for a balancing exercise of the reason for travel against the risk it might pose to the AU community? Were the circumstances described in Department of Home Affairs' website a policy? Must content of procedural fairness obligations conform to the circumstances of an emergency situation? Was denial of procedural fairness cured by fact that first refusal put Applicants on notice of factors considered by delegate?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the threshold of the evidentiary burden of proof borne by applicants for habeas corpus higher than that borne by applicants for false imprisonment, in that the former requires the applicant to demonstrate that there is a “case fit to be considered”, whereas the latter only requires demonstration of the fact of imprisonment? Must applicants in both causes of action satisfy the evidentiary burden by reference to the same point in (or period of) time?

Federal Court (Full Court). Under s 5 of the Migration Act, an "excluded fast track review applicant" includes a fast track applicant who "has made a claim for protection in a country other than Australia that was refused by that country". If a protection visa application is refused and the delegate forms the view that the applicant is an excluded fast track review applicant, that refusal is not subject to merits review. Can it be said that "the words 'a claim for protection' used in the relevant category of exclusion mean a claim for protection that was based upon alleged facts that are materially the same as those relied upon as the basis for the claim subsequently made in Australia"?