Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Minister sent an invalid invitation under s 501CA(3) to make representations seeking revocation of visa cancellation. Minister then sent an identical invalid invitation weeks later. Applicant made representations within the legislative timeframe calculated by reference to the date of the second, but not the first, invitation. Minister treated the representation as valid and made a decision under s 501CA(4), but challenged representation's validity before the Tribunal. Was the Tribunal allowed to determine whether it had jurisdiction by questioning whether the Minister's decision was valid?

Tribunal: One of the components of the Australian study requirement (ASR) is that the applicant must have completed one or more courses that "were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study". It is commonly said that the duration of the course/s must be of 92 weeks. Is that correct? In this decision, the Tribunal accepted that 2 concurrent courses of 78 weeks each were sufficient to satisfy the ASR. We explain why.

Federal Court: IAA affirmed decision to refuse Appellant a protection visa. Appellant then unsuccessfully applied to Federal Circuit Court (FCCA) for judicial review. FCCA's decision did not publish Appellant's name, in compliance with s 91X of Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which prohibits courts from publishing names of protection visa applicants. Appellant eventually appealed to Federal Court (FCA), arguing that: FCCA had constructively breached s 91X by publishing information sufficient to identify him; that breach was an appealable or jurisdictional error "because it frustrates the scheme by rendering the IAA decision nugatory..., in that it raises a new claim for protection". Should FCA issue a declaration that FCCA breached s 91X?

Federal Court (Full Court). In Katoa, the High Court held that, in determining whether to extend time under s 477A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Federal Court was not limited to a reasonably impressionist level of assessment of the merits of the judicial review application. Does Katoa apply to s 477?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "by reason of s 426B(6) of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)], the obligation to provide an applicant with a statement describing the effect of ss 426A(1B) to (1F) is inextricably linked with the obligation to provide an applicant with a copy of the written statement of the decision made under s 426B(2)"?

Federal Court (Full Court): The question to the Assistant Minister under s 501CA was whether there was "another reason" why the cancellation of the Respondent's visa should be revoked. The Respondent did not provide evidence, in his revocation request, of the circumstances which led to the offences. The Assistant Minister found, based on very limited information, that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. Was the limited information, in and of itself, a probative basis for that finding?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal's direction, requiring the Applicant to attend and participate in a consultation with a psychiatrist, an impermissible interference with the Applicant's fundamental rights to liberty or privacy? Did the Tribunal have the power to stay the proceedings for non-compliance with its direction?

Federal Court. In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can it be said that, in "taking into account future potential costs associated with the possible incarceration of the applicant while considering the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal has had regard to an irrelevant consideration"?

Federal Court. In considering Direction No 79 for the purposes of s 501CA(4), should decision-makers consider the consequences of any breaches of Australia’s obligations under international law not only to the non-citizen, but also to Australia? We summarise the answers to this and several other questions.

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the proposition that indefinite detention would constitute a breach of Australia’s international obligations a merely arguable consequence of the Minister’s decision, instead of an inevitable or certain legal consequence? If so, does that suffice to distinguish the Full Court decisions in CWY20 and ENT19? Were such decisions impliedly overruled by the High Court in Plaintiff M1?