Case Law Updates

Federal Court: This decision considered previous decisions on whether an administrative decision-maker is required to consider Australia's non-refoulement obligations in the context of exercising the discretion under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke mandatory cancellation of a visa pursuant to s 501(3A). The central question to the FCA was whether it had wrongly decided Omar.

Federal Court (Full Court): A person fails the character test under s 501(6)(b) if they have been a member of, or have been associated with, a group, organisation or person that has been involved in criminal conduct. Does the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 set up a presumption that a piece of legislation that is silent about its territorial operation, as is the case with s 501(6)(b), only applies within Australia? If so, does the object of the Migration Act 1958 rebut that presumption?

Federal Court (Full Court): AAT had to make a decision within 84 days of the delegate's decision. Hearing was scheduled for 1 week before that deadline, but the Appellant was not ready to present arguments by then. AAT adjourned hearing for just 1 day, on the assumption it had to give reasons within the above deadline. Was that assumption wrong? Further, was the visa refusal notification invalid, by analogy with DFQ17 ? With respect and the benefit of hindsight, could Appellant have made an additional argument?

Federal Court (Full Court): AAT dismissed application under s 42A of AAT Act. Applicant applied for reinstatement of that application. AAT refused to reinstate on the assumption that, if it reinstated, the original decision would be affirmed by operation of s 500(6L) of the Migration Act, thus rendering reinstatement useless. Was that assumption wrong? If so, could this judgement have the effect of tempting applicants, in some circumstances, to seek, in effect, a time "extension" by causing the AAT to dismiss an application, as odd as that looks at first glance?

Federal Court: "There are a number of troubling aspects of the Tribunal’s reasoning which could, at an impressionistic level at this stage, give rise to a successful appeal. Just by way of example, they include the following... The Tribunal appears to have held it against the applicant that he failed to provide explicit photographs of him and his partner engaging in homosexual sex to prove that he is homosexual".

OMARA: [All expenses incurred for the [subclass 187] nomination application are the responsibility of the sponsor and cannot be transferred to the visa applicant"... "I am satisfied that the Agent’s text message conversation with [the complainant] was related to the facilitation of payments intended to be provided to the employer by the visa applicant for a nominated position. It is an offence under sections 245AR and 245AS of the Act to ask for, receive, offer to provide, or provide a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event".

Federal Court (Full Court): Can admin decision-makers make findings of fact in the absence of evidence? Which of the following approaches is correct? A finding made with no evidence will only amount to jurisdictional error where: a) "the relevant finding is a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction"; b) "the finding is a critical step in the ultimate conclusion of the decision-maker". Can admin decision-makers, in certain circumstances, "draw on their accumulated knowledge or experience in respect of particular countries"?

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 (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.