Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Is there only one DFAT report which must be taken into account in order to comply with Direction No 84, given that the most recent report said that that it replaced the previous report?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "any violation of Australia’s international obligations is capable of bearing upon Australia’s national interest"? If so, does it follow that, "in evaluating the national interest, each and every decision-maker, irrespective of the statutory and factual context, had to consider any violation of Australia’s international obligations as part of the consideration of the national interest"?

Federal Court (Full Court). "Para 14.1(3) of Direction 79 stated that claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by a former visa holder in a revocation request "or can be clear from the facts of the case". Did Direction 79 impose an obligation on the AAT to recognise and understand that a non-refoulement claim which, if accepted, would satisfy s 36 of Act, arose so as to evaluate whether to defer an assessment of the claim to a visa application process, instead of treating itself as obliged to defer that assessment? If so, did that obligation include such a claim that clearly or squarely arose from the material?

Federal Court. Can a person come within the exception under s 22(9)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) "simply by establishing some form of connection with Australia or with Australians or with something that is connected to Australia"? Is the discretion in s 22(9) broad and multifactorial? Is a person's expression of desire to live in Australia an indication of a current connection?

Federal Court. Could r 5.19(3)(d)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) only be satisfied if the nominator would not operate at a loss as a result of employing the nominee for 2 years? Was the salary of another nominee a prohibited consideration under r 5.19(3)(d)(i)? If an employment contract makes no mention on whether the terms and conditions of the person’s employment exclude the possibility of extending the period of employment, does that amount to a failure to satisfy r 5.19(3)(d)(ii)?

Federal Court. Was the view of the Australian government and community that sexual and violence-related crimes are "very serious" (as 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 records) something that was apt to inform any assessment of the nature or seriousness of the Applicant's criminal history, in circumstances where his offending was neither sexual nor violence-related?

Federal Court. In the context of s 34(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act, were the Applicant’s "potential subjection to prolonged or indefinite detention, or his potential removal from Australia in breach of non-refoulement obligations ... matters that might properly be described as “direct consequence[s]” of revocation, of which the subject matter, scope or purpose of the Citizenship Act implicitly required that account be taken"? Does the same answer apply to the exercise of the discretion under s 34(2)? Can a visa that does not exist be cancelled?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is consideration of a person's health for the purposes of paragraph 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 limited to diagnosed conditions? In the absence of express reference to the definition of "family violence" in Direction 90, is it enough to determine that a person is someone else's intimate partner? Was it only for the admin decision-maker to consider whether someone was a member of the Appellant’s family?

Federal Court. Is it for a court to judge, pursuant to s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), whether "an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen", "based on the entirety of the evidence before it and not just the evidence that may have been available to the detaining officers"?

Federal Court (Full Court). In determining whether a "claim" estoppel arises, can different grounds of jurisdictional error be seen as separate causes of action or claims arising out of the one decision? In determining whether Anshun estoppel arises, is the principal inquiry "whether the ground of review should have been brought forward in the first proceeding, in the sense that it was unreasonable for the appellant not to have done so"?