Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). In BAL19, the FCA had decided that s 501 did not apply to protection visa applications. In KDSP, a 3-judge bench of the FCAFC overturned BAL19. Now, a 5-judge bench also overturned BAL19, although for slightly different reasons. Further, does s 501 apply to visa cancellations?

Federal Court. If AAT receives and accepts medical evidence to the effect that a person is mentally unfit to attend a hearing but that person attends the hearing anyway, can AAT make adverse credibility findings based on oral submissions without meaningfully appreciating that that person's medical condition might have affected those submissions? Further, can it be legally unreasonable to refuse to allow a representative to appear and participate at a Tribunal hearing related to a Part 7-reviewable decision? We summarise the answer to those and many other questions.

Federal Court. Applicant applied to FCA for extension of time within which to "appeal" AAT decision under s 44(2A) of AAT Act. AAT had decided, based on FCA decision in Lesi, that it had no power to adjourn the review, based on s 24(6)(a) of Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Applicant argued Lesi was wrong, but conceded it was not plainly wrong. If FCA allowed extension application: it could recommend that a direction be made under s 20(3) of FCA Act referring matter to FCAFC; if that was not recommended, Applicant could "appeal" AAT's decision, in which case FCA could dismiss appeal on the basis Lesi was not plainly wrong, but he would then have a right of appeal to FCAFC anyway. If FCA dismissed time extension application, that would be an interlocutory decision, meaning Applicant would need leave to appeal to FCAFC, unless time extension application itself were referred to FCAFC under 20(3). If, on a reasonably impressionistic level, there is a serious doubt about the correctness of Lesi, would that suffice for FCA to allow time extension application and make recommendation? Or would FCA also need to find Lesi was plainly wrong? Was there such a doubt?

Federal Court. Para 13.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 79 said that decision makers, when considering whether to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory cancellation of a visa, should consider the "frequency of the non-citizen’s offending". If several offences arose out of one, overall occasion of offending, can those offences be seen as frequent? Para 13.1.1(1)(d) was about "the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes". AAT said: "To an extent, the investigatory exercise required by this sub-paragraph (e) largely mirrors that required in an application of the immediately preceding sub-paragraph (d). This is because any trend of increasing seriousness of offending is usually analogous to the regime of sentencing imposed for it". Did AAT engage in double counting?

Federal Court. On 24 June 2020, FCA ordered Home Affairs Minister to decide a protection visa application by 3 July 2020 at noon. On 1 July 2020, Minister's lawyers sent an email saying that Minister was not available to personally make the decision within the timeframe and asking for variation of the order so that any other portfolio Minister could make the decision. On 2 July 2020, FCA accepted that request and ordered Home Affairs Minister to either personally make the decision or ensure it will be made by another portfolio Minister or a delegate by 3 July 2020 at noon. Applicant sought orders directing the institution of contempt proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the latest orders. If those orders are not complied with, could any explanation for non-compliance require an affidavit by the Minister personally and for the Minister to make himself available for cross-examination in contempt proceedings?

High Court. Is a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 473GB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "new information" within the meaning of s 473DC? If so and the IAA treats a certificate as valid and exercises the power conferred by s 473GB(3)(a) to have regard to the information protected by the certificate, can the IAA be taken to have considered that the certificate itself "may be relevant" within the meaning of s 473DC(1)(b)?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, in the context of a review by the IAA, "a failure to consider a submission offering an explanation which required an evidentiary foundation in circumstances where there was no such foundation could never cross the “threshold of materiality” so as to constitute a jurisdictional error"? Does BVD17 suggest that non-compliance with presidential directions made under s 473FB can have jurisdictional error implications? Are the factors in 473DD(b) mandatory considerations for the purposes of s 473DD(a)? Are those factors exhaustive of what might constitute “exceptional circumstances”? Did Appellant waive claim to apprehension of bias by himself providing the IAA with prejudicial material also provided by the Secretary? And more...

Federal Court. Is the materiality threshold high? Can individual errors which in and of themselves are immaterial nevertheless be cumulatively material?

Federal Court. Appellant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In personally deciding under s 501CA(4) whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Appellant's visa, Minister found that "further" offending of a violent nature by the Appellant could result in serious physical harm to members of the Australian community. Was Minister's decision legally unreasonable in that, although Appellant's conduct led to a violent outcome (death), the nature of the conduct was not violent, as there was no intent to harm? Is a subclass 444 visa a "limited stay" visa?

Federal Court. The sponsorship form for a carer visa application required sponsor's partner to sign that form, giving her approval to the sponsorship. Both the sponsor and partner signed form 40. Is a sponsorship valid if sponsor does not understand nature of the sponsorship obligations? Does the partner's signature on form 40 itself constitute sponsorship by the partner? Can carer visa applicant change sponsors after visa application is lodged?  DHA received a webform from informant about Appellant and provided AAT with webform and non-disclosure certificate issued under s 376. Was certificate invalid in that it was impossible to identify who the informant was and that the only information the informant sought to conceal was his/her identity?