Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court): could it be said that it "may be that a complementary protection claim could be based upon prevailing circumstances in a country of a kind that would expose a particular returnee to a risk of harm, even though there is no identified reason why the applicant for a protection visa might be targeted"?

Federal Court: The Full Court had decided in Ibrahim that the Minister had conflated Australia's non-refoulment obligations under international law with the protection obligations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Minister sought to distinguish Ibrahim on the basis that, here, he had accepted the findings made by an ITOA regarding non-refoulment obligations and had considered the Appellant's claim of harm "outside of the concept of non-refoulement", thus suggesting that there had been no conflation.

Federal Court (Full Court): In her visa cancellation revocation request, the Respondent made an "uncontentious assertion" that the sentencing remarks relating to her most recent convictions made no reference to whether those convictions involved drug use. The Minister took that assertion as a denial that those convictions were drug related and inferred that, because of the denial, she was likely to re-offend. Should the Minister have put the Respondent on notice that her "uncontentious assertion" would be critical to his decision?

Federal Court (Full Court): Can the rules of procedural fairness require "special steps or procedure" to be followed in particular circumstances? Could it be said that "there may be sufficient material in a particular case so as to put the AAT on notice that the review applicant did not, or might not, have [the capacity to give evidence]", thus requiring the AAT to take the "special step" of inquiring about capacity? Was this case one of those particular cases?

Federal Court: This judgement is about a visa which was refused in 2017, when the "old" version of s 338(2)(d) was in effect. However, the judgement referred to the "new" version of that provision, which only came into effect in December 2018. This case illustrates how challenging it is for anyone to keep up with the pace of change in our industry. Fortunately, it seems that the reference to the "new" provision did not make a difference in the outcome of the case, given the circumstances.

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?

OMARA: "As a member of the migration advice profession, the Agent is expected to act with fairness, honesty and courtesy when dealing with other [RMAs]. This includes efficient and effective communication with other agents with respect to the transfer of client information to the new agent when the original agent’s appointment is terminated... [T]he Agent had made a written undertaking to another migration agent to provide relevant documents, and had failed to do so, in breach of clause 4.6 of the Code".

Federal Court: In SZSSJ: personal details of SZSSJ were unintentionally disclosed on the DHA's website; DHA refused to disclose the full content of a KPMG report on the data breach, but referred SZSSJ to an ITOA with instructions to assume that information from him had been accessed by all persons from whom he feared persecution; HCA held that even if there was a denial of procedural fairness in not disclosing the full report, that was cured by the assumption. Was the AAT in this case obliged to make that assumption?

Federal Court: The Applicant argued that: Mr Dutton was not constitutionally permitted to make a decision by reason of not being allowed to have sat in the Parliament; the Full Court's decision in Ibrahim should be followed; the Minister's comment on radio conveyed apprehended bias. The Minister argued that Ibrahim was wrongly decided or, alternatively, that it should be distinguished on the basis that, in Ibrahim, it was the Assistant Minister who made the impugned decision.

OMARA: "I am satisfied that the Agent knowingly entered into arrangements that facilitated the provision of unlawful migration assistance... I have taken into account that the applications submitted to the Department on behalf of these sponsors were handled through the Agent’s business and that she was the nominated migration agent. It follows that I am satisfied the Agent knew, else ought to have known, immigration assistance was provided unlawfully in relation to their respective matters".