Power in s 501BA(2) to be exercised within reasonable time period?
Federal Court. Can the power in s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) only be exercised within a reasonable time after the original decision? If so, is the ultimate question whether the power under s 501BA was exercised within a reasonable time, by reference to the entire period between the original decision and the decision made by the Minister, instead of by reference to sub-periods within that entire period?
Protection visa applicant to pick correct label to describe claims?
High Court (single Justice). Is a protection visa applicant required to pick the correct "label" to describe his or her claims?
Notification deemed ‘received’; no late AAT applications
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
Mandatory cancellation: retrospective effect & more
Mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) requires that (a) the non-citizen not pass the character test and (b) be serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time of cancellation. Federal Court: it is irrelevant when the sentence that enlivens s 501(3A)(a) is imposed or completed; the sentence enlivening s 501(3A)(a) does not need to be the same sentence enlivening s 501(3A)(b)
Genuine position & ANZSCO; consequences of nomination refusal
Federal Court: when considering whether a position is genuine as part of a nomination application under r 2.72, is Minister obliged to consider the tasks of ANZSCO unit group? If not, is Minister at least allowed to consider those tasks? If Tribunal refuses to grant visa on the basis of its refusal to approve nomination and the nominator wins on judicial review so that nomination is remitted back to the Tribunal, should the Court dismiss the visa applicant's judicial review application as the visa applicant still did not have an approved nomination?
Does s 501(6)(b) capture conduct committed wholly outside Australia?
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?
MARA: “unlawful provision of immigration assistance by [RMA’s] staff”
Sanctions involving findings that practitioners have facilitated the provision of unlawful immigration assistance have become more and more common. OMARA: "I am satisfied that the Agent’s administrative staff have provided immigration assistance within the meaning of section 276 of the Act and that such was done under the Agent’s direction".
MARA: RSMS position advertised where nominee already employed by nominator
OMARA: "The Agent claimed that the nominated position was advertised on multiple platforms. The claimed advertising occurred after the employer and nominee attended the consultation with the Agent ... It is implausible that an employer would advertise a position for which they had already found a suitable candidate. As such, I am satisfied that [the complainant] was not genuinely recruited for the nominated position". With respect, can a nominator satisfy r 5.19(12)(c) without advertising the position?
Exceptions to the rule against re-litigation
Federal Court: Parties to a court dispute cannot litigate the same issues more than once, although appeals are not considered re-litigation. There are exceptions to the rule against re-litigation: res judicata, issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, which are "subsumed into the Federal Court’s implied incidental power to prevent abuse of its processes"; abuse of process by re-litigation; untenable claims; and judgement obtained by fraud.
Direction 65 made DFAT report a mandatory consideration?
Federal Court: Ministerial Direction No 65, now replaced by Direction No 79, provided as follows: "Where the [DFAT] has prepared a country information assessment expressly for protection status determination processes, and that assessment is available to the decision-maker, the decision-maker must take into account that assessment, where relevant, in making that decision". Are decision makers obliged to consider DFAT reports when making decisions to which Direction No 65 applies?