Denial of procedural fairness in relation to one issue material to another issue?

Federal Court (Full Court). In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal denied the Appellant procedural fairness by finding that the appellant failed the character test on different grounds, namely ss 501(6)(c), (d)(i) and (d)(ii), without giving him any notice that it might do so. Was the error material, even though he failed the character test because of s 501(6)(a)?

Multiple sentences under s 34(2)(b)(ii) of Citizenship Act

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the power in s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) triggered only where a single conviction leads to a single sentence of imprisonment for at least 12 months, be it aggregate or prior to cumulation?

Direction 110: did para 8.1.1(1)(b) mandate a finding?

Federal Court. Did the Tribunal err in considering that paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) mandated a finding that the applicant’s conduct in obstructing police was “serious”? Did para 8.3(2) of Direction 110 direct attention to the impact on the non-citizen of the loss of any other ties to the Australian community?

Is Australia’s agreement with Nauru valid?

Federal Court. Was Australia's agreement with Nauru for the removal of 3 individuals invalid, with the result that s 76AAA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was not enlivened?

Clause cl 892.212(c) interpreted

Federal Court. For the purpose of cl 892.212(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), may financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting standards provide evidence of the value of the net assets of a business? If so, and the financial statements prepared for a fiscal year overlap only partially with the period described in cl 892.212(c), is a period different from the period provided for in the provision acceptable?

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?

Appeal: lay witness acting as representative

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the discretion in s 32(4) of the AAT Act relate to persons required to appear before the Tribunal, but not to parties? May the word “appear” in s 32(1) of the AAT Act "be understood as invoking concepts of agency, such that the party may be taken to adopt and to be bound by the choices of the representative in the presentation of his or her case"?

Power in s 501BA to be exercised within reasonable time?

Federal Court. Is the exercise of the power in s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "subject to a requirement that it be exercised within a reasonable time having regard to the purpose for which the power was conferred and the circumstances in which it falls to be exercised by the Minister"? Is the Minister required to consider the effect of any delay in making a decision under s 501BA?

Legally unreasonable not to consider protection claims under s 501BA?

Federal Court. Was the Minister's decision under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "legally unreasonable in that he failed to consider (or deferred consideration of) the applicant’s protection claims, despite the applicant being unable to make a protection application by reason of being barred by operation of s 48A of the Act"?

Power in s 501BA to be exercised within a reasonable time?

Federal Court. Must the power in s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be exercised within a reasonable period of time? May satisfaction of the preconditions to the exercise of the power in s 501BA arise by consideration of matters that have arisen after the s 501CA decision?

Copyrighted Image

error: Content is protected !!