Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Should reasons as to whether to refer an ART decision to the ART's Guidance and Appeals Panel (GAP) usually not be given, for instance because, if a party appeals from that decision to the Court, "there may be some awkwardness in the [ART's] President making detailed findings on matters to be decided by the Court"?

High Court. Is the reference to the act of refusal in s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "simply to an historical fact, that has not been set aside in fact, regardless of its legal effect"? Does s 417 on its face confer a power of substitution only, instead of a power to set aside a decision of the Tribunal? Did the Assistant Minister's act of substitution in s 417(1) have the effect of setting aside the delegate's refusal decision?

High Court. Can it be said that it is "not reasonably open to a decision maker, when exercising their discretion to cancel a visa under s 116 of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)], to take into account a failure to respond to an NOICC [Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation] in a manner adverse to a visa holder, as there is no legal requirement for a person to respond to such a notice"?

Federal Court. Were the tests in ss 34(2)(c) and 34(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) retrospective only, with the assessment of risk of reoffending being of little or no relevance? In such tests, is it generally permissible for decision-makers "to have regard to such deterrence as a factor in the protection of the integrity of the naturalisation process, provided that it is not associated with a substantial purpose of pursuing retribution for or denunciation of the specific conduct engaged in by the person whose citizenship is revoked"?

High Court. The Tribunal found that both claimants were owed protection, and remitted the matters to the Department. Then, without deciding whether to grant them protection visas, the Department granted them other visas. As per NZYQ, removal from Australia was no longer a legitimate non-punitive purpose to keep them detained. Was the processing of their protection visa applications nevertheless a legitimate non-punitive purpose to keep them detained?

Federal Court. Assuming that the power in s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is required to be exercised within a reasonable time, and that such requirement is not complied with, is the consequence that a writ of mandamus might issue to compel the Minister to make a decision, instead of the power being treated as spent through certiorari?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "in cases where unreasonable delay is relied upon as the basis for a writ of mandamus, the delay must have reached the critical point prior to the commencement of proceedings"?

Federal Court. Should the Court withhold the grant of constitutional relief, for instance on the basis that the applicant’s case before the Minister was founded on the premise that Al-Kateb correctly represented the law and that the Minister should apply such law in making his decision, even though NZYQ subsequently overruled Al-Kateb?

Federal Court. In making a decision under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to set aside a Tribunal decision, can it be said that the Tribunal's reasons could be considered by the Minister, although they are not a mandatory consideration?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the question of whether a person qualifies as “a parent” under s 10B(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) a question of fact to be determined by the Court? Can it be said that, "absent a biological parental relationship, parentage typically is a matter of intense commitment which involves acknowledging that other person as one’s own child"?