Case Law Updates

Federal Court (FCA). Can it be said that, "in the ordinary course all issues of fact and law should be determined at the one time and that the [FCA] should generally exercise the power in r 30.01 of the Rules cautiously and sparingly"? 

Federal Court. Appellant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In personally deciding under s 501CA(4) whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Appellant's visa, Minister found that "further" offending of a violent nature by the Appellant could result in serious physical harm to members of the Australian community. Was Minister's decision legally unreasonable in that, although Appellant's conduct led to a violent outcome (death), the nature of the conduct was not violent, as there was no intent to harm? Is a subclass 444 visa a "limited stay" visa?

Federal Court: The rules that govern an application for injunction at first instance are not the same as those that operate on appeal. This court decision summarises the general principles that govern an application for injunction pending the outcome of an appeal.

Federal Court. In assessing the risk of a non-citizen re-offending for the purpose s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is it unnecessary for a decision-maker to descend to a level of granularity of assessing the risk of specific future criminal conduct, as that would "require the Minister to either develop superhuman prescience or engage in what could only be wild speculation which would ultimately be meaningless"? Is there a "period of limitation in the Act which might prevent the Minister taking action under s 501(2)"?

Federal Court (Full Court): Minister was allowed to cancel a BVE under reg 2.43(1)(p)(ii) based on charges against the holder, despite the fact that those charges were laid before the BVE grant.

Federal Court. Is the Tribunal required under Direction 99 to "consider whether the decision is in the best interests of a particular child if the facts known to the Tribunal are such as to raise a realistic question as to whether the decision will affect that child"?

Federal Court. If the department acts upon a visa application withdrawal request, does that act amount to a 'decision', with the result that the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to review such a decision? Might there be cases where a visa application has not been validly withdrawn? If so, will the appropriate remedy will be mandamus to compel the Minister to consider the application? Will the withdrawal of a visa application be invalid and ineffective if there was no genuine intention to withdraw the application?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the expressions in ss 5L(c)(ii) and 5J(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) necessarily encompass the same "characteristic"? Assuming that IAA accepted that the Appellant's interest for music and dance was "a characteristic that [was] fundamental to [his] identity", was it open to IAA to find that Appellant could avoid a real chance of persecution by carrying out his activities underground and with caution? Could the IAA have "decided that the appellant’s expression of his interest in music and dance “underground” would not conflict with a characteristic which was fundamental to his identity ... without having made a finding concerning the existence and nature of that characteristic"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "for the Minister to find that there was no material before him being evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation, notwithstanding the clear evidence of unblemished conduct of the applicant in the community in the seven years following her conviction which suggested rehabilitation of the applicant, is contrary to logic" and/or is legally unreasonable?

Federal Court. Does a judicial review applicant need to provide extended written or oral submissions on a topic for it to be sufficiently clear that a serious representation is being made? Is it open to the Tribunal to ignore a claim made pursuant to s 501CA(4), on the basis of the lack of supporting evidence provided to support that claim? Could the risk of infection from covid-19, when weighed with other factors, provide “another reason” for revoking the visa cancellation within s 501CA(4), depending on the circumstances of the case?