Case Law Updates

Federal Court. The applicant was notified that his visa was cancelled under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). About a month later, upon request, he received a second notification of the same cancellation, as he lost the first one. Did the second notification reset the deadline under s 500(6B) for the making of a valid Tribunal application?

Federal Court (FCA). If the FCA does not have jurisdiction to determine a judicial review application of a migration decision filed with it but the Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFC) does, does the FCA nevertheless have power to transfer that application to the FCFC?

High Court. Is the existence of a duty to afford procedural fairness a question of statutory interpretation? Is there a "strong" common law presumption, "generally applicable to any statutory power the exercise of which is capable of having an adverse effect on legally recognised rights or interests, that the exercise of the power is impliedly conditioned on the observance of procedural fairness"?

Federal Court. Sections 195A, 351 and s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) give the Minister powers which can only be exercised by the Minister personally in the public interest. Is the evaluative task of determining whether it is in the public interest for such powers to be exercised a task which cannot be delegated or undertaken through any form of agency in any respect? Is there a basis to grant injunctive relief preventing the removal of the appellant from Australia while the Minister considered whether to exercise those powers?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 require that there must be medical certification in order for a non-citizen’s “health” to be taken into account under that paragraph? Can it be said that para 9.3(1) applied "only to the impact on a victim of the perpetrator remaining in Australia, and excluding consideration by a decision-maker of the impact upon a victim of an offender being removed from Australia"?

Federal Court. Is a failure to disclose other judicial proceedings upon commencement of a proceeding in relation to a tribunal decision fatal to the latter proceeding?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the proposition that indefinite detention would constitute a breach of Australia’s international obligations a merely arguable consequence of the Minister’s decision, instead of an inevitable or certain legal consequence? If so, does that suffice to distinguish the Full Court decisions in CWY20 and ENT19? Were such decisions impliedly overruled by the High Court in Plaintiff M1?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "if it is common ground between parties that a particular fact is so, then it is a denial of procedural fairness for an administrator, for example, the Tribunal, to depart from that position without giving each party an opportunity to make submissions on that subject; in other words, ambushing by a decision-maker can amount to jurisdictional error"?

Federal Court. Were the individual subjects of the applicant’s Graduate Diploma in Business capable of being considered by the Tribunal as specifically relevant to the applicant’s nominated occupation of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Business Analyst (ANZSCO Code 261111), with the result that the Tribunal could have considered the Diploma as 'closely related' to that occupation under cl 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Was it "uncontroversial that people in immigration detention are subject to a much greater level of surveillance and monitoring than people in the community generally"? Would the complaint that the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant consideration have force "if the fact that the applicant’s ability to avoid drug use had not been “tested” was the Tribunal’s only basis for finding that he posed an elevated risk of reoffending"?