Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "in conducting a review of a non-revocation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal must give meaningful consideration to a clearly articulated and substantial or significant representation concerning the risk of harm to the former visa holder if returned to his country of nationality independently of a claim concerning Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations, and that a failure to do so may give rise to jurisdictional error"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Should the Tribunal should have considered, in making a decision under s 501C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), "the consequences for Australia of taking a decision facially contrary to the central provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child", based on the FCAFC's decision in FAK19? Did anything in the nature of the FCA's discretionary power with respect to costs require any particular consideration of pro bono representation?

Federal Court. May there be cases where, "having initially rejected a request to hear oral evidence from a person, the Tribunal may be obliged to re-consider the request having proper regard to the nature and content of evidence later given in writing by that person, assessed in light of the issues to be determined"?

High Court. Can a couple live "separately and apart" even when they reside in the same home? Is it possible for a couple who maintain "separate residences" to not be living separately and apart, so long as they live as a "single household"?

High Court. Does the question of whether a decision is reviewable under Part 5 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) depend on a non-citizen's ability to satisfy the requirements in s 347(3A)?  

Federal Court. Did the Tribunal commit a jurisdictional error in finding under cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) that the First Appellant was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, in the absence of any finding that she intended to apply for a permanent visa, did not intend to complete the course of study in question or that she was a “fake student”?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal's direction, requiring the Applicant to attend and participate in a consultation with a psychiatrist, an impermissible interference with the Applicant's fundamental rights to liberty or privacy? Did the Tribunal have the power to stay the proceedings for non-compliance with its direction?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the threshold of the evidentiary burden of proof borne by applicants for habeas corpus higher than that borne by applicants for false imprisonment, in that the former requires the applicant to demonstrate that there is a “case fit to be considered”, whereas the latter only requires demonstration of the fact of imprisonment? Must applicants in both causes of action satisfy the evidentiary burden by reference to the same point in (or period of) time?

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. Can it be said that the Tribunal's conclusions that the applicant's crimes against other road users, strangers and members of the public going about their daily lives were crimes against vulnerable members of the community for the purposes of para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction No. 90 were not obvious, with the result that procedural fairness required the Tribunal to put those conclusions to the applicant?