Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was there an expectation that the Tribunal would refer to the child’s views, given the centrality of those views to the Applicant’s case and the requirement under para 8.3(4)(f) of Direction 90? In determining through reasonable conjecture whether the Tribunal’s error was material to the outcome and thus jurisdictional, was the standard of reasonable conjecture equally undemanding?

Federal Court. In determining whether to set aside a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, is the Tribunal confined to the representations to the Minister? In determining through reasonable conjecture whether the Tribunal’s error in failing to consider a representation was material to the outcome and thus jurisdictional, is the standard of reasonable conjecture equally onerous?

Federal Court. Was the requirement under para 9.4.2(3) of Direction 90 to consider any impact on Australian business interests, meaning that the Tribunal was not confined to interests of a particular scale or importance? Did the qualifications in para 9.4.2(3) (i.e. “major project” and “important service”) apply only where there was an “employment link”?

Federal Court. In Nathanson, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ held in the context of a denial of procedural fairness that the standard of reasonable conjecture, used to determine whether an error was material and thus jurisdictional, was "undemanding". Is a reasonable conjecture applicable in the context of an assessment of the materiality of errors in the form of a failure to consider a claim or evidence in support of a claim? If so, is the standard of reasonable conjecture also undemanding in such a context?

Federal Court. Should the determination of whether a representative’s email address was provided for the purpose of one matter but not another be determined objectively, without considering the subjective intention? Can an authorisation to receive documents in relation to a business monitoring survey constitute an authorisation to receive documents in relation to a NOICC?

Federal Court. Is it "illogical in the ordinary sense of the word for an administrative decision-maker to state that consideration has been given to evidentiary material in circumstances where no such consideration has been given"? At what point in time must the consideration of whether cancellation is in the national interest occur, pursuant to s 501BA(2)(b)? Can materiality be considered in aggregate?

Federal Court. Do the words “an applicant…for a visa of a prescribed kind” in s 140GB(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) qualify a visa applicant, not the nomination? Was a nomination of a visa applicant made under s 140GB(1)(b)? Was a nomination for a subclass 482 visa capable of satisfying cl 457.223(4)(a)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

High Court. Is the common law presumption against extraterritorial operation more accurately labelled as a "presumption in favour of international comity"? Did the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court? Can it be said that "Federal courts, other than the High Court, owe their jurisdiction to laws enacted under s 77(i) of the Constitution"?

Federal Court. The appellant answered a question in a student visa application form, indicating he had never had previous visa refusals. In reality, he had had student visa refusals. Was it unnecessary for the Tribunal to explain in any detail the basis upon which it considered the impugned answer was relevant to cl 500.212 (GTE criterion)? Did PIC 4020(5)(b) require determination of whether cl 500.212 was satisfied? May an applicant's provision of such false or misleading information be a 'relevant matter' within the meaning of cl 500.212(c)?

Federal Court. In Nathanson, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ held in the context of a denial of procedural fairness that the standard of reasonable conjecture, used to determine whether an error was material and thus jurisdictional, was "undemanding". Is reasonable conjecture applicable in the context of an assessment of the materiality of errors in the form of misinterpretation of s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? If so, is the standard of reasonable conjecture also undemanding in such a context?