Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Must a non-citizen be convicted of, or charged with, an offence in order for the Minister to lawfully have regard to the alleged conduct for the purpose of s 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "if executive power is to be exercised with a conscious understanding that it will result in the long term separation of a child from a loving and supporting parent with likely long term harm to the children then, given the nature of the obligation to give reasons in the present case, it is to be expected that the seriousness of that consequence and its consideration would both be manifested expressly in the reasons of the Minister"?

Federal Court. If the department acts upon a visa application withdrawal request, does that act amount to a 'decision', with the result that the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to review such a decision? Might there be cases where a visa application has not been validly withdrawn? If so, will the appropriate remedy will be mandamus to compel the Minister to consider the application? Will the withdrawal of a visa application be invalid and ineffective if there was no genuine intention to withdraw the application?

Federal Court. If the Minister relies on an Adverse Security Assessment (ASA) rather than independently assessing the risk posed by a person, does this amount to dictation? Can the Minister consider non-refoulement obligations as part of the residual discretion under s 501(2)-(3)? Is a decision under s 501(3) or 501C(4) rendered invalid by relying on s 501(6)(g) in circumstances where the ASA is invalid? In assessing whether s 501C(4)(b) is met, is the Minister limited to considering the same sub-sections of s 501(6) which founded cancellation under s 501(3)?

Federal Court. Minister sent an invalid invitation under s 501CA(3) to make representations seeking revocation of visa cancellation. Minister then sent an identical invalid invitation weeks later. Applicant made representations within the legislative timeframe calculated by reference to the date of the second, but not the first, invitation. Minister treated the representation as valid and made a decision under s 501CA(4), but challenged representation's validity before the Tribunal. Was the Tribunal allowed to determine whether it had jurisdiction by questioning whether the Minister's decision was valid?

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. 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 Nathanson, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ held in the context of a denial of procedural fairness that the standard of reasonable conjecture, used to determine whether an error was material and thus jurisdictional, was "undemanding". Is a reasonable conjecture applicable in the context of an assessment of the materiality of errors in the form of a failure to consider a claim or evidence in support of a claim? If so, is the standard of reasonable conjecture also undemanding in such a context?

Federal Court. Is the ongoing validity of a cancellation effected under s 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) conditional upon timely compliance with the requirements of s 501CA? Does the use of the word 'may' in s 501CA(4) mean that the decision-maker retains the discretion not to revoke a visa cancellation even if satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character or that there is 'another reason' to revoke?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the word “should” in para 8.4(4) indicative of a requirement that must be followed (i.e. that is mandatory)? Is it doubtful that the Tribunal can permissibly have independent regard to community expectations as assessed by it, given the Direction’s express provisions with regard to that subject which can be expected to cover the field?