Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Is s 34(5)(a) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) satisfied only where the citizen has been convicted of a single offence, as opposed to multiple offences? Is there a meaningful distinction in the context of s 34(2)(c) between the concepts of it being contrary to the public interest for a person to remain an Australian citizen and it being in the public interest that that person not continue to be an Australian citizen?

Federal Circuit Court: can an existing subclass 186 visa application be "linked" to a new nomination?

Federal Court. Due to s 500(6L), AAT had 84 days to decide under s 501CA(4) whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Applicant's visa. At the time of AAT's decision, Applicant still had about 6 years of imprisonment to serve. Could AAT make a legally reasonable decision about the risk the Applicant would present to the community upon release 6 years in advance? Did AAT have "power to remit the application with a direction, or recommendation, that a decision concerning the application for revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa be deferred until closer to the time of his release from imprisonment"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does the question of the materiality of an error typically (although perhaps not necessarily) arise only once a court is satisfied that the administrative decision-maker exceeded its jurisdiction in some way? Is an administrative decision-maker "relieved of its obligation to consider [a person's] contentions simply because they were not made good on the evidence"?

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. Does the reasoning of the Full Court in CGX20 require "the conclusion that a victim of offending who advances a claim that the impact on them should the cancellation of an offender’s visa be revoked would be positive is disentitled from having that contention and their interest as a victim taken into account in the application of cl 14.4 of Direction No 79"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "in cases where unreasonable delay is relied upon as the basis for a writ of mandamus, the delay must have reached the critical point prior to the commencement of proceedings"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal entitled to double count its assessment of the seriousness of the applicant's offending both when attributing weight to that specific consideration and again when weighing all considerations, both primary and other, in the final assessment?

Federal Court. Do the submissions to the IAA alter its obligation to consider the review material, including the claims that were dealt with by the delegate? In determining whether a claim not expressly made to the IAA nevertheless clearly emerged from the materials before it, is it significant that the delegate considered the claim? Was it necessary for the Appellant to expressly repeat to the IAA the claim made to the delegate, in circumstances where there was no evidence that he had abandoned it?

Federal Court. Was the adverse conclusion that the Applicant had committed serious crimes against other road users who were to be viewed as vulnerable members of the community for the purposes of para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90 one not obviously open on the known material, with the result that the Tribunal not putting the Applicant on notice of it amounted to a denial of procedural fairness?