Case Law Updates

Federal Court: appellant failed to attend Tribunal hearing; Tribunal dismissed the application for non-appearance; appellant provided a medical certificate that was not 'properly completed'; Tribunal found appellant did not have sufficient explanation for non-appearance and did not reinstate proceedings

Federal Court: 'if the evidentiary requirements were satisfied simply by a statutory declaration made by [a nurse], who is a non-treating [nurse], the words [under IMMI 12/116] in relation to treatment would be otiose'

The latest AAT Bulletin contains references to several migration and citizenship review decisions.

'That there were errors in the [Minister's] decision record does not affect its character as a Pt 5 reviewable decision'

Although the AAT will defer dealing with late applications in the MRD pending an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, that does not necessarily mean that late applicants should defer lodging their review applications any further

Federal Court: 'The statutory scheme ... contains no indication that the application process might be kept on foot at the election of an applicant by the applicant exercising a “right” ... to keep re-sitting the ... Test'

A Federal Court decision on subclass 457 that might also apply to subclass 482: 'it is appropriate that the Tribunal gives consideration to the correct version of [ANZSCO]... it is illogical that the visa decision could be valid notwithstanding the invalidity of the nomination decision'

The AAT 'had the power to extend time and ought to have treated [the review application] as a proper or at least a constructive application for an extension of time'.

Once a decision is made to cancel a visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 based on certain factual circumstances, can a further decision be made under the same provision, based on the same factual circumstances?

A reinstatement decision by the AAT focusing only on whether the appellant had been properly notified of the hearing was 'too narrow', given that the appellant's arguments on the reinstatement application had not been so confined.