Did Code 35 NPC satisfy request for police check?
High Court (single Justice). In determining whether to grant the plaintiff a time extension to file his judicial review application, does he disclose an arguable basis for relief in arguing that the delegate made an error in treating a Code 35 NPC as not satisfying the request?
Reg 2.55 a prescribed method for s 119(2)?
High Court (single Justice). Can it be said that, although "a separate visa was granted to each of the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs, nevertheless the Second and Third Plaintiffs were each a "holder" of the Protection visa granted to the First Plaintiff"? Was r 2.55 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a prescribed method for the giving of a NOICC under s 119(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
Does common law operate retrospectively?
High Court (single Justice). Does the common law, once determined, operate both prospectively and retrospectively? In other words, if an administrative decision-maker decides a case based on the law as then understood, but that understanding then changes, does the new understanding apply ab initio?
Risk to community despite remaining in Australia anyway?
Federal Court. The Minister found that cancellation under s 501BA(2) was in the national interest, because of the risk to the community if the Applicant remained in Australia, and the community's expectation that the government would not allow persons convicted of the offences involved to remain in Australia. Was that finding irrational, as the Applicant was NZYQ affected and would thus remain in Australia anyway?
Part 2: risk to community on BVR versus protection visa?
Federal Court. The Minister found that cancellation under s 501BA(2) was in the national interest, for instance because of the risk to the community if the Applicant remained in Australia, and the community's expectation that the government would not allow persons who committed serious offences to remain in Australia. Was that finding legally unreasonable, as the Applicant was NZYQ affected and would thus remain in Australia anyway?
Must each of the matters in para 8.4(4) of Direction 110 be considered for...
Federal Court. Did the requirement in Direction 110 to give “individual consideration” to the best interests of each child require that each of the matters identified in para 8.4(4) be considered in respect of each child?
Does PIC 4003(b) detract from s 501?
Federal Court (Full Court). Does the subject matter of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) deals completely, and thus exclusively, with the subject matter of PIC 4003(b) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), with the result that PIC 4003(b) detracts from or impairs the operation of s 501?
Did IAA mean what it said?
Federal Court. Can it be said that the Immigration Assessment Authority's "statement that “there was no evidence before me” should be understood as meaning...
Legally unreasonable not to honour promise to consider representations under s 501BA(2)?
Federal Court. In the context of s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was it legally unreasonable for the Minister not to honour...
Does Browne and Dunn apply to a trial judge?
Federal Court. Does the rule in Browne and Dunn, being one of fairness, apply equally to a trial judge as to counsel?















