Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court): s 473DD provides that IAA must not consider new information unless certain preconditions are satisfied. But does that provision expressly or impliedly empower IAA to consider new information? Can it be said that "the factors in s 473DD(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act must, in all cases, be considered by the [IAA] in deciding whether 'exceptional circumstances' exist", pursuant to s 473DD(a)? What factors is IAA "required to consider in reaching its state of satisfaction or non-satisfaction of the twin requirements of s 473DD"? Can the "matters concerning the substance or merits of the new information" sometimes be relevant for the purposes of s 473DD(a)? Is IAA "required to take into account or have regard to the matters advanced by the applicant as establishing either" ss 473DD(b)(i) or (ii)?

Federal Court. Para 14.5 of Direction No 79 provides, as a consideration to be taken into account in determining whether to revoke under s 501CA(4) a visa cancellation: "The extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country)..." Does para 14.5 require a qualitative assessment about not just the nature of the impediments, but also their likely severity? Is the statement in brackets concerned with a comparison between the situation in the non-citizen's hope country and the situation in Australia? We summarise the answer to these and other questions.

Federal Court (Full Court). Does a failure to perform the Secretary’s duty under s 418(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to give the Tribunal the documents that are relevant to the review invalidate a subsequent decision by the Tribunal?

Federal Court (Full Court). Section s 501(3)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) required cancellation of the Appellant's visa to be in the national interest. Can it be said that, although past criminal conduct is usually established by the fact of conviction, "that is not to say that evidence of conviction or evidence of conduct that is criminal to the criminal standard is necessary before it is open to the Minister to be satisfied that cancellation of a visa is in the national interest"?

Federal Court. Does s 41(2) of the AAT Act authorise the making of an order after the AAT has made its decision? Is the subject of s 43(5C) the operation or implementation of the AAT's decision, instead of the decision under review by the AAT? Can it be said that "the power under s 44A(2)..., to make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of a decision the subject of an appeal to [FCA], should be construed so that it is [not] limited to a power that has prospective effect only", at least in circumstances where an "applicant has made a claim for final relief that the Tribunal’s decision be set aside ab initio"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Where the Tribunal finds that no marital or de facto relationship as defined in ss 5F and 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) existed at any time, is the consequence that the question of family violence for the purpose of cl 100.221(4) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) does not arise for consideration, contrary to El Jejieh?

Federal Court. The Full Court held in Thornton that a finding of guilt as a juvenile is effectively expunged for the purposes of considering pursuant to Direction 90 the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s offending. Is Thornton distinguishable if the Tribunal considers juvenile's conduct as “other serious conduct”, instead of as criminal conduct?

Federal Court. In Nathanson, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ held in the context of a denial of procedural fairness that the standard of reasonable conjecture, used to determine whether an error was material and thus jurisdictional, was "undemanding". Is reasonable conjecture applicable in the context of an assessment of the materiality of errors in the form of misinterpretation of s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If so, is the standard of reasonable conjecture also undemanding in such a context?

Federal Court. If a conviction forms the basis for a visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the cancellation is then revoked under s 501CA(4), is a decision-maker prevented from using that same conviction as the basis to cancel the visa under s 501(3A)? Did s 501(3A) require an act of the Minister by which a visa was cancelled? Or was the provision rather self-executing?

High Court. Does the question of whether a decision is reviewable under Part 5 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) depend on a non-citizen's ability to satisfy the requirements in s 347(3A)?