Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). If a non-citizen makes representations under s 501CA(4)(a) within the period specified by the legislation and the Minister (or Tribunal) makes a decision under s 501CA(4)(b) on the merits of the case on the assumption that the representation is validly made, but the period fixed in the invitation issued under s 501CA(3)(b) is incorrect, is that decision nevertheless valid? In other words, will an error in the date fixed in the invitation justify the grant of remedies by a court only if the error is material?

Federal Court (Full Court). Could a conclusion that a non-citizen posed a risk of reoffending similar to other ordinary Australian residents rationally support a conclusion that the risk was unacceptable? Can it be said that "a finding that the appellant’s conduct has not been tested in the community does not establish that the appellant is a risk of reoffending"?

Federal Court. Would a Tribunal application to review a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be invalid and of no effect if it failed to "contain a statement of the reasons for the application", as required by s 29(1)(c) of the AAT Act, even if such a statement were subsequently provided to the Tribunal, but after the deadline for a merits review application?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "in order to raise a relevant issue under cl 9.2 there needs to be some evidence of the relevant support in the home country"? For the purpose of cl 9.2, is it "necessary that there be some evidence or material to demonstrate there is some qualitative difference between the circumstances in Australia and those in the applicant’s home country"?

Federal Court. Was the Tribunal obliged to explain why certain conditions (if any) should be imposed for the purpose of cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), instead of merely listing such conditions in its reasons for decision? If so, was that obligation obviated if the visa applicant conceded to the Tribunal that those conditions should be imposed?

High Court. Must it be accepted that, "if a visa applicant is unresponsive, there may come a point in time where it is reasonable for a decision‑maker to exercise the discretion under s 62 of the Migration Act and make a decision to refuse to grant a visa"? If so, could a reasonable decision-maker "have decided that that point had been reached when the plaintiff had obviously misunderstood what was being offered to her and no one attempted to correct her misunderstanding"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does it follow from the failure to reference certiorari in s 39B of the Judiciary Act, that [the Federal Court] lacks jurisdiction to grant relief of that character, the effect of which is to quash an impugned decision"? Can it be said that the Federal Court "has jurisdiction (not by way of an appeal regularly brought) to review decisions made by its judges"?

Federal Court. If the Minister finds under s 501CA(4) that "the broader Australian community’s general expectations about non-citizens, as articulated in [Direction 90], apply in this case", but then, "without any explanation and before anything else ... immediately states that he “attributed this consideration significant weight against revocation of the cancellation of [the Applicant's] visa”", will he fail to intellectually engaged with the question of the weight to ascribe to those expectations?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "once a view is taken that a witness has been untruthful in one respect, it can and often does affect, consciously or subconsciously, the assessment of the witness’s remaining evidence, whether that other evidence was given before or after the supposedly untruthful evidence"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that ss 362B(1A), (1B), (1C), (1D), (1E), (1F) and (1G) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "are not an exhaustive statement of the steps the Tribunal might take in circumstances of non-appearance at a hearing as s 362B expressly preserves by s 362B(2) the power of the Tribunal to make a decision to reschedule the applicant’s appearance before it or to delay its decision on the review in order to enable the applicant to appear before it at a rescheduled hearing"?