Can Minister cancel BVE for charges laid before grant?
Federal Court (Full Court): Minister was allowed to cancel a BVE under reg 2.43(1)(p)(ii) based on charges against the holder, despite the fact that those charges were laid before the BVE grant.
RMA sanctioned for lack of VEVO consent
'... Agent had accessed the personal and immigration information of a person who was not her client on three separate occasions without their knowledge or permission, using [VEVO]'
High Court: non-disclosure certificates
The fact of notification by the Minister to the AAT that disclosure of information would be contrary to the public interest triggers a procedural fairness obligation on the part of the AAT to disclose that fact to the review applicant; incorrect notification may lead to jurisdictional error; content of notification may be admissible in court for the purposes of materiality
Hossain extended to court decisions
Federal Court (Full Court) extends the High Court's materiality test in Hossain: 'the requirement of materiality for there to be jurisdictional error applies to a court as much as it does to an administrative decision-maker'
s 116(1)(g): risk of harm or persecution
Federal Circuit Court: The risk of harm or persecution if removed from Australia 'was a matter to be weighed by the Tribunal in determining whether to affirm the' delegate's decision to cancel the visa
Can AAT consider dob ins?
Federal Court (Full Court): 'it will not always be illogical or irrational to place “some weight” on anonymous information'
s 116(1)(e): reaction by the Australian community
Federal Circuit Court: for the purposes of cancellation under s 116(1)(e), the risk to the good order of the Australian community included risk caused by actions of members of that community; those members needed not be reasonable nor identified
s 501CA(3): who can notify of cancellation?
Federal Court: the effect of s 497(2) of the Migration Act 1958 was that the person who sent a visa cancellation notification under s 501CA(3) needed not be delegated power under s 496(1) to cancel or notify of cancellation
‘Decision’ to cancel under s 501(3)
Federal Court: 'I do not think that [deciding to cancel a visa under s 501(3) rather than s 501(2)] is a “decision” which is subject to judicial review'
Cancellation revocation: applicant’s conduct as a child
Federal Court: AAT made jurisdictional error by characterising applicant's actions as a 9-year-old as 'offences'