Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Is a party entitled to apply to the Federal Court for a referral for pro bono assistance? If not, may that party nevertheless "raise the possibility of a referral and thereby invite the Court to consider the exercise of the discretion under r 4.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)"?

Federal Court. Applicant could not be removed from Australia, due to effect of NZYQ. In the context of a refusal of a protection visa under s 501(1), Minister submitted to Tribunal that “that there were no third country removal options for the Applicant”. On judicial review, Applicant argued that was not true. Does Applicant have a proper basis to seek discovery of what information was available to the Minister concerning the impending third country reception arrangement with the Republic of Nauru at the time of the Tribunal hearing?

Federal Court: In the context of s 501CA(4), AAT found it did not need to consider Applicant's claim that he feared harm if returned to Iraq as non-refoulement obligations would be assessed first if Applicant applied for protection visa, due to Direction 75. AAT wrote: "Although this Tribunal is inclined to believe that [the applicant] would be at some risk if returned to Iraq ..., it is not in a position to make any such definitive finding in the absence of more solid probative or evidentiary material to which it does not have access". Nevertheless, AAT found that such a claim weighed in favour of the Applicant. Did AAT make the error discussed by the FCAFC in Omar by not considering risk of harm outside the scope of non-refoulement obligations? Can it be said that such error was immaterial as AAT found there would be "some risk" of harm anyway? In other words, is the materiality test a binary exercise?

Federal Court (Full Court). Cl 820.211(2)(c) required Appellant to be sponsored at TOA. Cl 820.221(4) required sponsorship to have been approved at TOD. Under reg 1.20(1), sponsor is a "person …who undertakes the obligations stated in sub-regulation (2)". Reg 1.20(2)(c) provided that the "sponsor undertakes to assist the applicant, to the extent necessary, financially and in relation to accommodation...". AAT adopted PAM3, which read that r 1.20 "requires officers to be satisfied that the sponsor can meet the financial needs of the applicant". AAT found Appellant's partner was not capable of fulfilling the undertaking under r 1.20 and thus was not a sponsor. Is the capacity to fulfil that undertaking relevant for the purposes of cl 820.221(4)?

Federal Court (Full Court): the Appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended on a bond in NSW. As a result, the Minister cancelled his visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (mandatory character cancellation). The Appellant argued to the Full Court that a suspended sentence is not a sentence for the purposes of the definition of a "substantial criminal record" under s 501(7).

Federal Court. Appellant applied for subclass 485 visa under Graduate Work stream, but without positive skills assessment. Although this was not the case here, FCA discussed whether application would be invalid if it nominated 2 streams. Is a stream or subclass a visa class? If a person applies for a visa class, can a different class of visa be granted? Could the visa be granted under the Post Study stream? In answering the latter question, is it relevant that ImmiAccount: allowed the lodgement under the Graduate Work stream despite the fact that Appellant had answered "no" to the question as to whether he had a positive skills assessment; said that lack of a positive skills assessment "may result" in refusal?

Federal Court (Full Court): could it be said that it "may be that a complementary protection claim could be based upon prevailing circumstances in a country of a kind that would expose a particular returnee to a risk of harm, even though there is no identified reason why the applicant for a protection visa might be targeted"?

Federal Court. Is it an error to diminish the weight to be accorded to para 14.2(1)(b) of Direction 79 by reason of either of the sub-considerations...

Federal Court. Do the words “an applicant…for a visa of a prescribed kind” in s 140GB(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) qualify a visa applicant, not the nomination? Was a nomination of a visa applicant made under s 140GB(1)(b)? Was a nomination for a subclass 482 visa capable of satisfying cl 457.223(4)(a)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the proposition that indefinite detention would constitute a breach of Australia’s international obligations a merely arguable consequence of the Minister’s decision, instead of an inevitable or certain legal consequence? If so, does that suffice to distinguish the Full Court decisions in CWY20 and ENT19? Were such decisions impliedly overruled by the High Court in Plaintiff M1?