Not liable to s 189 detention if not an alien?
High Court. Can it be said that a non‑citizen who does not have a visa that is in effect is not liable to detention under s 189(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) if they are not an alien? Can it be said that, "what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to be an unlawful non‑citizen must be judged against what was known or reasonably capable of being known at the relevant time"? In other words, can it be said that what constitutes reasonable grounds cannot be invalid ab initio?
Non-applicability of Ministerial Direction a mandatory consideration?
Federal Court. Was the Minister “required to consider the “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences” of the s 501(3) cancellation decision he was contemplating”? If so, was the non-applicability of the relevant ministerial direction (Direction No. 79) a “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequence” of the Minister’s s 501(3) decision that the Minister ought to have considered”?
Direction 90: is order of factors relevant?
Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Tribunal permitted for the purpose of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to consider the combined influence of cll 9.4.1(2)(a) and (b) of Direction 90 as constituent parts of the “other ties” consideration in cl 9.4.1(2) and apply the abating effect under cl 9.4.1(2)(a)(i) to that consolidated whole?
Are the ss 501CA(4)(b)(ii) & 501(1) discretions closely analogous?
Federal Court. Does s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) involve a discretion? If so, is that discretion closely analogous discretion to the discretion under s 501(1)?
s 501CA(4): possible to revoke visa cancellation after expiry?
Federal Court. Did the ability lawfully to revoke under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the cancellation of a visa "expire with the expiry of what would otherwise have been the duration of the term of the visa"? In other words, can it be said that the ability to revoke the cancellation did not exist, as revocation would merely restore an already expired ('stillborn') visa?
PIC 4020 waiver: was separation period a mandatory consideration?
Federal Court. Did the Tribunal need to form a view pursuant to PIC 4020(4)(b) about the likely period of separation before determining whether PIC 4020(1) should be waived?
s 477(2): Court limited to impressionistic assessment level?
Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "when determining whether the primary court can be satisfied that it is “necessary in the interests of the administration of justice” to make an order [under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] to extend the 35 day period, the scope of the power, so far as it engages the Court in a consideration of the substantive grounds supporting the claim for s 476 relief, is confined to simply determining whether the “grounds on their face … are plainly hopeless”?
MARA decision: “all clients” dealt with by RMAs?
If an RMA's website advertised that "your case will be represented and advocated only by [an RMA] throughout the entire application process", but a client was not dealt with by an RMA, was that advertisement, combined with other factors, misleading even if the non-RMA dealing with that client was located overseas?
Viane extended to s 501(1)?
Federal Court (Full Court). The High Court said as follows in Viane about s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth): "That scheme necessarily requires the Minister to consider and understand the representations received". Does Viane equally apply to the consideration of any material relied on by a person who was subject to the exercise of the power under s 501(1)?
Concurrent proceedings in AAT’s General Division & Migration and Refugee Division?
Federal Court. If any part of the decision on the application for a protection visa relied upon ss 5H(2)(c) or 36(2C)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), must review be sought in the General Division of the Tribunal? If so, was the General Division's jurisdiction confined to reviewing the decision to refuse the application for a protection visa to the extent that reliance was placed by the decision-maker upon those provisions?