Case Law Updates

Federal Court: a single judge of the FCA accepted that DFQ17 stood for the proposition that refusal letters must clearly convey the deadline for merits review, but also accepted the Minister's argument that the particular letter did so. As a result, arguing DFQ17 has now become more challenging, meaning that submissions on DFQ17 need to be really well articulated.

Federal Court: when determining under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, should a decision-maker also take into consideration the non-citizen's submissions regarding what the expectations of the Australian community are or should the decision-maker only take into consideration their own views of what constitutes those expectations?

Federal Court: a time of decision criterion for visa subclass 836 is that a medical certificate must state that the person receiving care has and will continue to have a need for direct assistance for at least 2 years. Does it mean that the certificate must be issued shortly before the time of decision? Could the certificate issued in 2010 "reasonably say anything about the degree of impairment of the sponsor 8 years later"? Does a medical certificate expire?

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

Federal Court: a previous FCA judgement had held that a notice under s 66 of the Migration Act 1958 of a decision to refuse to grant a visa did not itself constitute a "decision" that enlivened the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA). Does the same principle apply to visa cancellation revocation notices issued pursuant to s 501CA(3)?

Federal Court: the Minister may seize a document if he/she "reasonably suspects" that it is forfeited under s 45A(2) of Citizenship Act, which provides that a "bogus document" given to the Minister is forfeited. A bogus document is defined as a document that the Minister "reasonably suspects" satisfies some criteria. Does that mean that "all that is required for seizure is a reasonable suspicion that the Minister has a reasonable suspicion that the document is a bogus document"?

Federal Court: when considering whether a position is genuine as part of a nomination application under r 2.72, is Minister obliged to consider the tasks of ANZSCO unit group? If not, is Minister at least allowed to consider those tasks? If Tribunal refuses to grant visa on the basis of its refusal to approve nomination and the nominator wins on judicial review so that nomination is remitted back to the Tribunal, should the Court dismiss the visa applicant's judicial review application as the visa applicant still did not have an approved nomination?

Federal Court: the A-G declined to recommend to the Governor-General that the Applicant be pardoned and to refer her case to the Queensland Court of Appeal. Were those decisions by the A-G judicially reviewable? Why this decision matters to our clients: under s 501(10) of the Migration Act 1958, a conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of the character test if the person has been pardoned or the conviction has been quashed.

Federal Court (Full Court): Q1 to the FCAFC: did Minister personally spend about an hour or only 11 minutes considering whether to cancel a visa? Q2: should the Court could draw a Jones v Dunkel inference that the Minister spent only 11 minutes? Q3: if the Court finds that Minister spent only 11 minutes, was that sufficient for the Minister to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the materials provided by the Department?

Q1 to the OMARA: assuming that it was not the Agent who forged the sponsor's signature and that he was not aware of the forgery, did he nevertheless facilitate the forgery by lack of diligence? Q2: assuming that the Agent's copying of the letterhead from the sponsor's website into nomination documents without the sponsor's knowledge did not involve dishonesty, was that nevertheless a misleading act? Q3: did the metadata on the Agent's file notes indicate to OMARA that those notes were not contemporaneous?