Case Law Updates

Federal Court: 86-year-old UK national Appellant had visa mandatorily cancelled and applied for a protection visa, claiming he had several health conditions, including a major depressive disorder. He provided a medical letter stating that, if returned to the UK, he was at high risk of suicide. He claimed he was owed complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) in that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed, he would suffer significant harm by being arbitrarily deprived of his life pursuant to s 36(2A)(a). Is s 36(2A)(a) restricted to the risk of being deprived of life by a third party? If so and if the UK did not prevent his suicide, would that constitute arbitrary deprivation of life? If so, did the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in not assessing what would be the UK’s response to the risk of suicide?

Federal Court. Could r 5.19(3)(d)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) only be satisfied if the nominator would not operate at a loss as a result of employing the nominee for 2 years? Was the salary of another nominee a prohibited consideration under r 5.19(3)(d)(i)? If an employment contract makes no mention on whether the terms and conditions of the person’s employment exclude the possibility of extending the period of employment, does that amount to a failure to satisfy r 5.19(3)(d)(ii)?

Federal Court. If a 'transitory person' who needs to be in Australia for a temporary purpose makes a written request to be removed from Australia, do they need to be removed? If so, can that person be removed to a place contrary to their wishes? Is the subjective opinion of an officer which determines the application of s 198AH(1A)(c)? Pending removal under s 198(1) or (1A), is a non-citizen to be detained?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, although the Tribunal would not have been entirely acting of its own initiative if it accepted K's invitation conveyed by the Applicant to speak to the Tribunal, the information that would have been given by K would not have been presented "in support of the [Applicant's] case", as it would rather have been presented as a result of the Tribunal eliciting information from K? In other words, was the giving of information by K precluded by s 500(6H) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Does s 423A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) codify the circumstances in which the Tribunal may draw an unfavourable inference?

Federal Court. In Brown & Makasa: delegates cancelled visas under s 501(2); AAT set aside cancellations; Minister then personally exercised discretion to cancel under s 501(2) based on the same offences; court held power to exercise discretion under s 501 based on the same offences was spent by delegates' decisions. Here, discretion to cancel under s 501(2) was enlivened by an offence, but delegate decided not to cancel. Was Minister then allowed to personally exercise discretion under s 501(2) based on a new offence?

Federal Court. The decision in Constantino from 2013 was to the effect that the whole of the qualification is to be compared with the whole of the occupation for the purpose of cl 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)? Can it be said that "descending into an analysis of some of the subjects undertaken in order to find a relationship in part is not required, if the comparison undertaken of the two 'wholes' indicates the test of close relationship would not be satisfied in any event"?

High Court. Paragraph (d) of the definition of "behaviour concern non-citizen" under s 5(1) provided as follows: "a non-citizen who ... has been removed or deported from Australia or removed or deported from another country". Does that definition imply removal effected in accordance with Div 8 of Pt 2 of the Act or lawfully or validly removed? Can the legal acts referred to in paras (a) to (c) "be quashed or reversed by a court with the result that there is no decision within the meaning of paras (a) to (c)"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the risk of harm to the applicant from violence and crime upon removal to South Sudan is not reduced by reason that the applicant may make a protection visa application, as such an application may be refused? In other words, should Plaintiff M1 be distinguished?

Federal Court: The AAT received 2 non-disclosure certificates under s 375A, but only disclosed the existence of the first. The second certificate referred to the MRT, although the MRT had already amalgamated into the AAT. The appellant argue, among other things, that had he known about the existence of the second certificate, he could have argued: that it was invalid as it referred to the abolished MRT; that even if it were valid, he could have argued for a favourable discretion to disclose the content covered by it. Does a discretion really exist?