Federal Court: Was the AAT obliged to call a psychologists for cross-examination? Was the AAT's reason illogical on the basis that, on the one hand, it expressed 'concerns about the reliability of the final conclusions in relation to recidivism presented in the reports of both [psychologists]' and, on the other hand, 'proceeded to accept both those assessments and use them effectively as bookends to a range which is expressed by the AAT as “‘low’ to ‘low to moderate’ risk” that the applicant will re-offend'?
Federal Court: s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 provides that an appeal shall not be brought to the Federal Court (FCA) from the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA), unless the FCA gives leave to appeal. However, according to s 24(1C), leave is not required for an appeal from an interlocutory judgement affecting the liberty of an individual. Was a no-jurisdiction judgement by the FCCA an interlocutory judgement that affected the liberty of an individual?
Federal Court: AAT failed to disclose a document containing adverse information and its existence. That document was not protected by a non-disclosure certificate. Non-disclosure constituted a breach of procedural fairness. Was that breach material to the decision? Can it be inferred from s 359A and from the lack of reference in the Tribunal's decision record to that document that its non-disclosure was not material to the decision? Does the copying by an AAT member of the reasons of a prior member necessarily mean jurisdictional error?
Federal Court: Do practitioners have a 'right' to object to unfair questions at Tribunal hearings? Must joint liabilities be owed between applicant and sponsor or must they be owed by them, jointly, to others? If applicant and sponsor owe financial obligations to each other, can that tell against the existence of a relationship? Can the gifting of a car tell against the pooling of financial resources? Can the Tribunal's conclusions about 1 of the 4 relationship aspects impact other aspects?
Federal Court: the AAT held a second hearing 20 months after the first hearing. The Appellant made a delayed judicial review (JR) application to the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA), which made a decision 13 months after its own hearing. Questions: 1) if the FCCA accepted the delayed JR application, was it required to consider all grounds of JR contained in that application? 2) did the Tribunal's delay subvert the merits review process? 3) did the FCCA's delay give raise to appealable error?
Federal Court: a single judge of the FCA accepted that DFQ17 stood for the proposition that refusal letters must clearly convey the deadline for merits review, but also accepted the Minister's argument that the particular letter did so. As a result, arguing DFQ17 has now become more challenging, meaning that submissions on DFQ17 need to be really well articulated.
Federal Court: when determining under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, should a decision-maker also take into consideration the non-citizen's submissions regarding what the expectations of the Australian community are or should the decision-maker only take into consideration their own views of what constitutes those expectations?
Federal Court: a time of decision criterion for visa subclass 836 is that a medical certificate must state that the person receiving care has and will continue to have a need for direct assistance for at least 2 years. Does it mean that the certificate must be issued shortly before the time of decision? Could the certificate issued in 2010 "reasonably say anything about the degree of impairment of the sponsor 8 years later"? Does a medical certificate expire?
Federal Circuit Court: can an existing subclass 186 visa application be "linked" to a new nomination?
Federal Court: a previous FCA judgement had held that a notice under s 66 of the Migration Act 1958 of a decision to refuse to grant a visa did not itself constitute a "decision" that enlivened the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA). Does the same principle apply to visa cancellation revocation notices issued pursuant to s 501CA(3)?