Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Cl 485.222: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". Can it be said that, although the central consideration is the information in ANZSCO, "other skills which an applicant submits are relevant to the nominated occupation are not irrelevant to the Tribunal’s task"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can the Tribunal act on its personal or specialised knowledge and on matters which are commonly known? Does the discharge of the onus placed on the judicial review applicant to prove that a finding by the Tribunal, which required evidence but was one in respect of which there was not a skerrick of evidence, was material to the outcome require proof that the finding was erroneous?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, “in order to make a decision in accordance with law on the remittal of a matter it is necessary, in the sense required by the doctrine of necessity as an exception to the bias rule, that the differently constituted IAA be provided by the Secretary (under s 473CB(1)(c) of the Migration Act) with a copy of the judgment or judgments identifying the legal error which vitiated the first decision of the IAA”?

Federal Circuit Court. Cl 485.222: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". This decision concerned cl 485.213(b), which was drafted in identical terms. Is it "necessary that the [completion of the course used to satisfy the Australian study requirement] be a prerequisite to a person’s being qualified to conduct the nominated skilled occupation"? Does the fact that the course used to satisfy the Australian study requirement provided generic skills that do not directly relate to the nominated occupation mean that the course is not closely related to that occupation?

Federal Court (Full Court). Cl 485.222: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". This decision concerned cl 485.213(b), which was drafted in identical terms. Can it be inferred from those provisions "that an assessment of the visa applicant’s skills for his or her nominated skilled application could be based on an assessment of the applicant’s qualifications obtained overseas and need not necessarily include any qualification obtained in Australia"? In reaching its conclusion at [47], the Tribunal had only considered ANZSCO's occupational description and the minor group in ANZSCO which included that occupation. Was it a jurisdictional error for the Tribunal to ignore the higher ANZSCO levels, namely the sub-major group and the major group?

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"?

Federal Court (Full Court). In assessing Direction 79, can it be said that, "where a matter is relevant to two or more mandatory relevant considerations, a decision-maker is not usually required to take the matter into account repetitiously"?

High Court. "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", is it open to the decision-maker to "defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non‑refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa"?

Federal Court. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review a delegate's decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), even if the delegate’s decision was invalid or beyond power?

Federal Court. The expression “compelling reasons” in cl 802.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations was not defined. Did that expression have the same meaning discussed in Plaintiff M64/2015 in the context of cl 202.222(2)? Is the genuineness of the marriage a matter that must be taken into account in determining whether there are compelling reasons for not applying the Sch 3 criteria? If not, does that mean that the Tribunal was bound to ignore the nature of the relationship?