Can applicant’s speculation go against their credibility?
Federal Court. Appellant claimed in his protection visa application that he was arbitrarily detained in Ethiopia at the airport and driven to prison by a person he believed was a private driver. He claimed: he begged for driver to call his wife and tell where he was being taken to; and that the driver did so. AAT invited Appellant to speculate on why driver would have made the call. AAT itself speculated driver would not have called Appellant's wife. Was it irrational for AAT to rely on a matter the Appellant was asked to speculate about as a basis to make adverse credibility findings against him on the factual elements of which he had first-hand knowledge? Is the "adjectival description of “extreme” ... a necessary element in a finding of illogicality or irrationality"? How high is the materiality threshold?
Family violence: can applicant & sponsor be neither spouses nor de facto partners?
Federal Court: Appellant was granted a subclass 820 visa and then claimed to have suffered family violence committed by the sponsor. Appellant sought to rely on family violence (FV) provisions for subclass 801 visa. Could the FV provisions be satisfied if there never was a relationship between the sponsor and the Appellant? If not, could they be satisfied if the relationship was not spousal or de facto in nature? Was AAT bound to accept that the relationship existed at the time of application, given that the delegate had been satisfied that the relationship existed at that point in time?
Perpetrator’s size relevant to para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 99?
Federal Court. In Garland, the Full Court said in relation to para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 99 that, "where the Direction uses the phrase “vulnerable members of the community” it means members of vulnerable groups in the community; it does not encompass an individual who has physical characteristics or particular circumstances that make them vulnerable vis-à-vis a particular perpetrator". Would the same reasoning apply if the Tribunal said that an applicant's "sheer size would have been most intimidating to the victim"?
Appeal: power in s 501BA(2) to be exercised within reasonable time period?
Federal Court (Full Court). Is the power in s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) subject to an implied limitation that it be exercised within a reasonable period of time after the original decision?
Overlap between failure to afford PF and apprehension of bias?
Federal Court. May there "be overlap between a failure to afford an opportunity to be heard, and a reasonable apprehension of bias on the ground of pre-judgment, because the former may give rise to the latter"?
Subsection 48A(1AA) interpreted
Federal Court (Full Court): The effect of s 48A(1AA) used to be that a person who relied on the Refugees Convention criterion under s 36(2)(a) for a protection visa (PV) application was barred from making a further PV application while in Australia if the original application had been refused. However, that person was not barred from making a further PV application based on the complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa). Subsection s 48A(1AA) was then amended, with the aim of changing that rule, but has the amendment achieved that aim?
Section 36B of the Citizenship Act invalid?
High Court. Is s 36B of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) invalid because it is not supported by a head of Commonwealth legislative power or because it reposes in the Minister for Home Affairs the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt?
Did r 5.19 require position to be geographically fixed?
Federal Court (Full Court). The AAT affirmed a refusal of a nomination application under r 5.19 and then affirmed the corresponding subclass 187 visa application refusal. The visa applicant applied for judicial review of the AAT's visa decision. Did he have standing in court to collaterally challenge the AAT's nomination decision through the application for judicial review of the AAT's visa decision? Did cl 187.233(3) refer to a decision in fact made, even if affected by jurisdictional error? Did r 5.19(4) require that the 'position' be restricted to one geographical location?
Unlawful due to cancellation or refusal?
Federal Court. Subsection 196(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) read: "if the person is detained as a result of the cancellation of his or her visa under section 501, 501A, 501B, 501BA or 501F, the detention is to continue unless a court finally determines that the detention is unlawful, or that the person detained is not an unlawful non‑citizen". DHA cancelled Applicant's BVA under s 501(3A) and then refused to grant him a protection visa. Was he detained "as a result of the cancellation" of his visa or rather as a result of the visa refusal? Did FCA have power under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to order his release on an interlocutory basis on the basis that s 196(1) of the Migration Act is not inconsistent with s 23?
Clause 132.227(2)(b): significant benefit implied?
High Court (single Justice). Do the words 'benefits the Australian economy' in cl 132.227(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) imply a significant benefit?