Case Law Updates

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'

Federal Court: AAT made jurisdictional error by characterising applicant's actions as a 9-year-old as 'offences'

Federal Court: the applicant's last email address provided to the Minister for the purposes of receiving documents was the one provided by the AAT

Federal Circuit Court: the reference to 2 years under reg 1.15AA 'is not linked to “the assistance” but... to the “medical condition”'

Federal Court (Full Court): 'Modern Australian society’s cultural awareness... should be at the very foundation of a decision which affects Aboriginal family and community'

Federal Court (Full Court): visa cancellation notification taken to have been received under reg 2.55(8), whether or not actually received; AAT had no discretion to accept late application under the Migration and Refugee Division

Federal Court: Tribunal can correct errors in its written statement of reasons in the General Division, but only if they are 'obvious', immaterial errors

The Full Court of the Federal Court has unanimously held that 'Brown No 2 was wrongly decided and should not be followed'

Federal Court (Full Court): Where a Minister 'relies on the assessment of a Departmental officer and an officer ... within the Department withholds ... a not insignificant part of that assessment, ... the Minister will be taken to have failed to take that not insignificant material into account'

Federal Circuit Court: the 'error made by the Tribunal was that it stopped short of assessing whether it was “unlikely” that the grant of the visa would result in undue cost or prejudice. Its analysis was entirely focused on the possibility'