Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was it irrational or illogical for the Minister to give significant weight to the protection of the Australian community towards his satisfaction of the national interest under s 501A(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in circumstances where, as the Applicant would not be taken into detention and would continue to reside in the community by reason of NZYQ?

Federal Court (Full Court). If a visa applicant wrongly answers a question in a visa application form and in a subsequent visa application freely answers the same question correctly, could the latter answer be said to indicate that the incorrect answer did not involve purposeful falsity for the purpose of PIC 4020? Does the fact that the IELTS exam on which the Appellant's score was 7 suggest that the Appellant knew the meaning of the legal term "conviction"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1 detract from the proposition that certain matters in Direction 90 were mandatory considerations which had to be considered even if no representations were made about them, lest the decision-maker make a jurisdictional error? Does the assessment of the materiality of an error made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) involve a balancing, instead of binary, exercise?

Federal Court. Could a subsequent s 501(3A) cancellation decision rely on a conviction if that conviction was previously taken into account when deciding to revoke a mandatory cancellation?

Federal Court. Section 426(1A)(b) provided that if an applicant failed to appear before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could dismiss the application without any further consideration of the application or information before it. Was the power in s 426(1A)(b) a discretion which must be exercised legally reasonably?

Federal Court. Is the criterion in s 477(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a "mere procedural checkbox having no legal consequence for the exercise of the power" to extend the time within which a judicial review application can be filed? If not, does that mean that the Federal Circuit Court cannot have regard to matters not articulated by the parties themselves?

Federal Court. Given the 25-month gap since the Tribunal’s decision, was it "illogical or irrational for the Minister to assume that certain facts at the date of the Tribunal’s hearing remained the same, or that the lack of evidence on certain matters at the date of the Tribunal’s decision meant that there continued to be a lack of evidence at the date of his decision"?

High Court. Is a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 473GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "new information" within the meaning of s 473DC? If so and the IAA treats a certificate as valid and exercises the power conferred by s 473GB(3)(a) to have regard to the information protected by the certificate, can the IAA be taken to have considered that the certificate itself "may be relevant" within the meaning of s 473DC(1)(b)?

Federal Court: FCA had held that: the factors in Direction 53 for assessing whether a person is a Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) were not mandatory considerations; decision makers were only required to consider whether to weigh up those factors; evidence going to a particular factor might be "shown to be so significant or compelling that it might be inferred that the Tribunal's failure to refer to that evidence manifested a failure to [consider whether to weigh up that factor]". Do the same principles apply to Direction 69? We explain how practitioners can use this decision to maximise the prospects of satisfying the GTE criterion. Further, FCA answered whether it was likely that Appellants' RMA had told them "they did not need a lawyer" at FCCA.

Federal Court: Is homelessness a mandatorily irrelevant consideration for the purposes of paragraph 14.2(1)(a)(ii) of Direction 65, which makes the time a non-citizen "has spent contributing positively to the Australian community" a mandatory consideration? If not, may there be "circumstances where the manner of a decision-maker’s reference to, or application of, a non-citizen’s homelessness in Australia is so alien to, or incompatible with, the subject-matter, scope or purpose of the Act such as to infringe an implied limitation as to the decision-makers’ powers"? If so, was the present case one of those circumstances? Further, s 43(2B) of the AAT Act requires the AAT to include in its reasons “its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based”. Does it follow that everything stated in the AAT's reasons is material to its decision?