Direction 110: can family violence favour non-citizens?
Federal Court. Did para 8.2 of Direction 110 (about the government viewing family violence very seriously) dictate the weight to be given to the consideration of the family violence? Is it inconceivable that the fact that a non-citizen has engaged in family violence would weigh in favour of that person, even if the relevant offending was at a low level of seriousness?
Tribunal bound by Direction to view family violence as very serious?
Federal Court (Full Court). Para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of Direction 90 said that decision-makers must have regard to the fact that family violence is viewed very seriously by the Australian Government. Did para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) bind decision-makers to view family as very serious?
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?