Case Law Updates

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?

Federal Court (Full Court): was an email that exceeded the maximum size accepted by the addressee nevertheless "capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by the addressee"?

Federal Court (Full Court): the AAT interpreted r 1.05A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) to provide that a non-citizen could only be "substantially reliant" on a single person in order to be "dependant" on that person. The Appellant argued to the Court that she could be "substantially reliant" both on the primary applicant and on a non-applicant.

Federal Court (Full Court): a non-citizen was born, and was usually resident, in India. Although eligible for Sri Lankan citizenship, he was stateless. The IAA assessed his protection visa application on the basis that he was a Sri Lankan "national". The Minister argued to the Court that a person is a "national" of a country if they are a citizen or eligible for citizenship of that country.

Federal Court (Full Court): In considering a visa application, the Minister may get any information that he/she considers relevant. If the Minister gets such information, he/she must have regard to that information in deciding whether to grant a visa (s 56). The question to the 5 judges was whether, after getting about 800 pages of materials submitted by a non-citizen, the Minister was required to have regard to all of the relevant information.

Federal Court: under the Medevac provisions, 2 doctors must assess ("either remotely or in person") a transitory person before they can be brought to Australia for medical treatment. The non-citizen argued that the review of medical records of itself constituted "remote assessment". The Minister argued that "remote assessment" must involve a consultation.

Federal Court: as reported by Migration Law Updates in Dec 2018, the Federal Circuit Court had held that the reference to "2 years" under reg 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994 was linked to the "medical condition", not the "assistance" to be provided by the carer. That decision was appealed.

High Court (Full Court): a non-citizen held in immigration detention invited the Court to draw the inference that there was no real prospect or possibility that he would be removed from Australia. Based on that inference, he also invited the Court to adopt the view of the minority in Al-Kateb, to the effect that his detention was unlawful.