Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Would the consideration under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and para 9.2(1) of Direction 99 of the extent of impediments to removal from Australia weigh against revocation only in exceptional circumstances?

Federal Court. Does the fact that a particular conclusion on a particular issue is based on specialised knowledge "have the result that the rules of procedural fairness do not require that the issue be brought to the attention of an applicant if the issue is a critical or important one which is not obvious on the known material"?

Federal Court. May a jurisdictional error in the form of a breach of procedural fairness "be established where a Tribunal, or a cross-examiner, asks a question in circumstances which give rise to a right to refuse to answer on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination and a sufficient explanation of the existence of the right to refuse to answer is not given"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that s 500(6J) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "does not apply to information which is sought from the applicant by the Tribunal of its own initiative, and, instead, it applies only in respect of information provided by the applicant in support of his case in chief"?

Federal Court. In CRNL, the Full Court held that the Tribunal in that case had ascribed weight to the various considerations, having considered each in isolation, and then expressed a conclusion "without demonstrating that it actually weighed the various considerations against each other", which amounted to a jurisdictional error. Should CRNL be distinguished?

Federal Court. Is an address given on an incoming passenger card given for the purpose of s 52(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? Was it open to the Minister to treat an address given for the purpose of s 52(3A) as the "person's last residential address ... known to the Minister" within the meaning of r 2.55(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)?

Federal Court. Para 8.3(4)(a)(i) of Direction 90 provided that "considerable weight should be given to the fact that a non-citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years". Does that compel the Tribunal to give "considerable weight"?

Federal Court. Does the "Citizenship Act require the relevant decision maker to consider and decide on each aspect of s 21(2) once s 21(1) is enlivened, even if a prohibition on approval applies", such as s 24(6)(g)?

Federal Court. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s 198(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

Federal Court. In circumstances where the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was suffering from a medical or psychological condition in relation to substance abuse and addiction that required clinical treatment and supervision, did it fail to complete the exercise of its jurisdiction, as para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 99 require it to consider the applicant’s health issues relating to alcohol abuse and drug addiction, which it failed to do?