Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Appellant applied to FCCA for judicial review (JR) and extension of time within which to apply for JR. In dismissing time extension application, FCCA engaged in more than an impressionistic evaluation of merits of proposed grounds of review. Did FCCA make jurisdictional error by doing so? Can FCCA hear applications under ss 476 and s 477(2) together? Was the FCCA's error not material in that, had it not misconceived s 477(2), it would have decided the JR application against Appellant anyway?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the words “a danger” in s 36(1C) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) refer to more than trivial harm? Can the expression “the Australian community” used in s 36(1C)(b) refer to a danger to an individual within that community? Is the word 'danger' in s 36(1C)(b) a function of probability and consequence?

Federal Court. Must the power in s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? May satisfaction of the preconditions to the exercise of the power in s 501BA arise by consideration of matters that have arisen after the s 501CA decision?

Federal Court (Full Court). Cl 485.222: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". This decision concerned cl 485.213(b), which was drafted in identical terms. Can it be inferred from those provisions "that an assessment of the visa applicant’s skills for his or her nominated skilled application could be based on an assessment of the applicant’s qualifications obtained overseas and need not necessarily include any qualification obtained in Australia"? In reaching its conclusion at [47], the Tribunal had only considered ANZSCO's occupational description and the minor group in ANZSCO which included that occupation. Was it a jurisdictional error for the Tribunal to ignore the higher ANZSCO levels, namely the sub-major group and the major group?

Federal Court. The Applicant was an NZYQ-affected BVR holder. Was it "not necessarily irrational or illogical to consider the provisions of the Direction on the basis that cancellation of the applicant's Global Special Humanitarian visa would remove his entitlement to stay in Australia thereby requiring his removal, provided the Tribunal also separately and sufficiently brought to account the additional consideration relevant to the applicant, namely that, in all likelihood, he would remain in Australia under different visa arrangements"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is s 29(1)(c) of the AAT Act satisfied by an implicit statement drawn by inference from the way in which the decision under review was identified or by documents which accompany the Tribunal application? Is the requirement to lodge an application within the prescribed time in s 29(1)(d) essential to its validity?

Federal Court. Was the view of the Australian government and community that sexual and violence-related crimes are "very serious" (as 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 records) something that was apt to inform any assessment of the nature or seriousness of the Applicant's criminal history, in circumstances where his offending was neither sexual nor violence-related?

Federal Court. Was the reasoning by which the Tribunal reached its conclusion that the risk of reoffending was “not negligible” irrational or unreasonable, "in that it was based on the nature of the second offence committed by the visa applicant and his state of mind at the time that he committed that offence, without any connection to the visa applicant’s present state of mind or his current attitudes towards sexual offending"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Instead of saying that errors in the form of legal unreasonableness in the making of a finding “on the way” to the final conclusion are material by definition, can it be said that they are material if they are critical findings, in the sense that there is a built-in requirement of materiality?

AAT gave some weight to the fact that the applicant's country of origin is impacted by covid-19 in assessing under cl 820.211(2)(d)(ii) whether there were compelling reasons for not applying Sch 3. Although past AAT decisions are not binding on future AAT decisions, we discuss how a decision of the Federal Court can be useful in that it states that like cases should be treated alike, meaning that this AAT decision can be used to argue that the AAT should also give some weight to covid-19 in future cases.