Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). For a person to be a ‘parent’ within the meaning of s 12 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), must he or she be the biological parent of the child? Can it be said that, "whether the relationship between [the Respondent's mother and the Respondent's claimed father] was “genuine and continuing” at the time of [the Respondent's] birth or whether [her mother] may have made misrepresentations concerning the extent of her relationship with [the claimed father] is of limited relevance to, much less determinative of, the statutory question"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is a court prevented from restraining abuses of its process in an application for habeas corpus?

High Court. Does s 351(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) involve 2 sequential statutory decisions (the first being procedural and the second being substantive) neither of which the Minister is obliged to make? Were the 2016 Ministerial Instructions an approximation of the 'public interest' (being the test in s 351(1)), with the result that the Minister purported to entrust the dispositive evaluation of the public interest to departmental officers, thereby exceeding the statutory limit on executive power imposed by s 351(3)?

Federal Court. Does the reference to 'claimed harm' in para 9.1(6) in Direction 90 mean harm that is claimed to be the necessary 'specific type of harm' that must be demonstrated in order to give rise to an international non-refoulement obligation? Did para 9.1(6) require the Tribunal to "consider whether the applicant's case was 'an appropriate case' to assume in the applicant's favour whether the claimed harm relied upon to support the non-refoulement obligation will occur"?

Federal Court. How should the 35 days referred to in s 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be counted? Was the date of the "migration decision" the date when the Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its decision?

Federal Court. Was it permissible for the delegate to consider, for the purpose of r 2.20(17)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), that the Appellant had not signed a request for removal, was not in immigration detention and had a pending application for judicial review?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does it follow from the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1 that there is "an important distinction between considering (in the sense of adverting to and understanding) the representations made by an applicant seeking the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) (on the one hand) and considering the same representations, in the sense of evaluating their significance in the course of making the decision (on the other hand)"?

Federal Court. The Minister submitted to the Tribunal that it should give no weight to the statements by the applicant's witnesses, as they had not been made available for cross-examination. Was the applicant denied procedural fairness in circumstances where his representative: did not object to the course proposed by the Minister or indicate to the Tribunal that he was caught by surprise by that submission; was asked by the Tribunal whether he wished to respond to any points made by the Minister’s representative?

Federal Court. Were the applicant’s offending and risk of re-offending matters properly able to be considered as part of the evaluation of the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia? Did the Tribunal double count its assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending and the risk of re-offending?Federal Court. Were the applicant’s offending and risk of re-offending matters properly able to be considered as part of the evaluation of the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia? Did the Tribunal double count its assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending and the risk of re-offending?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the High Court, the Federal Court and/or the Federal Circuit Court have jurisdiction to review decisions under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Does XJLR support a conclusion that the FCA has jurisdiction to review the validity of a delegate’s decision under s 501(3A) in the context of an application for judicial review of a decision under s 501CA(4)?