JNMQ distinguished?
Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to find that cancellation of the visa was in the national interest because of the risk to the Australian community, given that the applicant would be in the community in any event due to NZYQ?
When is a citizenship application ‘made’?
Federal Court. Was the day the person made an application for citizenship the day it was dispatched? Or was it made the day it was received by the Minister?
AAT failed to turn its own independent mind to the case?
Federal Circuit and Family Court. The AAT's reasons copied many passages from the reasons of the very decision under review. Did the AAT fail to turn its own independent mind to the consideration of the case? Did the lack of disclosure of its intended reliance on those passages amount to a denial of procedural fairness?
Clauses 8.3(1) and 8.4(4)(d) of Direction 99 interpreted
Federal Court. Can it be said that the reference in para 8.3(1) of Direction 99 to "immediate family members in Australia" include children, although they need not be children? Is the question under cl 8.4(4)(d) "not concerned with relationships which may come into existence in the future but rather with those which presently exist"?
AAT’s apprehended bias?
Federal Circuit and Family Court. In reviewing a refusal to grant a student visa to an Indian national who sought to study cookery in Australia, the AAT said at the hearing: "I know that 99% of the cooks in India don’t come here and study". Was the AAT's decision affected by apprehended bias?
Did AAT fail to advise applicant he could seek adjournment?
Federal Court. Was the Tribunal required to advise the applicant of his entitlement to seek a short adjournment so that he could provide statements from one of more of his siblings in Australia?
Benefit to community an irrelevant consideration due to NZYQ?
Federal Court. As the Appellant's detention was unlawful because of NZYQ, was it legally unreasonable or irrational to assess the benefit to the community on the basis of a detention which was unlawful?
Student visa and materiality
Federal Court. Were the financial capacity criterion and enrolment criterion not entirely independent, with the result that the Tribunal's finding on the latter did not render its error on the former immaterial?
Ministerial intervention for AAT’s ‘no jurisdiction’ decision?
Federal Court. In determining that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the decision because of the invalidity of the application, was there a "decision of the Tribunal under section 415" of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that the Minister had the power under s 417 to substitute for the decision of the Tribunal?
Natural justice given and withdrawn under s 501BA?
Federal Court (Full Court). Was the Minister’s decision under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) vitiated by reason of the failure to afford natural justice to the Appellant as a result of the invitations to her to provide material and the subsequent omission to have regard to the last provided piece of information?