Case Law Updates

OMARA: "The Agent claimed that he had experienced technical difficulties when lodging" a visa application for a complainant through ImmiAccount. To what extent does OMARA have access to ImmiAccount records? For instance, does it have access to records indicating when a draft application was created or saved? Further, can a client who has not paid any fees or signed an agreement make a complaint?

According to the OMARA, following a complaint, it sent a notice under s 309 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the practitioner, who asked for an extension of time to respond to the notice until the lifting of the covid-19 pandemic restrictions. Were those restrictions sufficient to justify a time extension?

Federal Court. On 10 June 2020, Flick J held that BAL19 was not plainly wrong and declared that the Minister's delay in deciding the Applicant's protection visa application was unreasonable. His Honour held on that date that it was unnecessary to issue mandamus ordering the Minister to make a decision within a deadline his Honour expected that the Minister would abide by the declaration and make a decision without delay. However, the Minister wrote to the Applicant as follows after Flick J's decision: "As the Minister has now appealed the judgment of Justice Flick, no decision will be made on your client’s visa application pending the outcome of the appeal. The Minister’s position is that s 501A is an available power in relation to your client’s visa application and that Justice Flick was in error in finding that the delay in making such a decision was unreasonable and that s 501A was not an available power in the circumstances of this matter. Any decision made prior to the resolution of the appeal as to whether BAL19 was wrongly decided would render the appeal moot". Can Ministers of the Crown be imprisoned for contempt of court?

Federal Court. Delegates refused 2 requests made under s 7 of the Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Overseas Travel Ban Emergency Requirements) Determination 2020 (Cth). Section 7 provided that an exemption to the travel ban may be granted to an AU citizen or PR in exceptional circumstances, which are demonstrated by providing a compelling reason for needing to leave Australia. Does s 7(2) exhaust the concept of exceptional circumstances? Does the delegate's use of the language of “critical” reason rather than “compelling” reason indicate error? Do the situations which indicate a need for compassion to be exercised fall within the concept of “exceptional circumstances"? Does s 7 call for a balancing exercise of the reason for travel against the risk it might pose to the AU community? Were the circumstances described in Department of Home Affairs' website a policy? Must content of procedural fairness obligations conform to the circumstances of an emergency situation? Was denial of procedural fairness cured by fact that first refusal put Applicants on notice of factors considered by delegate?

Federal Court. Appellant's protection visa application was refused. At AAT, he claimed that, if returned to his home country, he would be homeless and destitute due to his financial predicament and would be detained as a result. Generally speaking, s 210 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides that a non-citizen is liable to pay the Commonwealth the costs of his/her removal or deportation. In determining whether Appellant would become homeless in his home country, should AAT have considered the effect of s 210, which would impose a further financial burden on him?

OMARA found it: received 2 complaints against an RMA; sent the RMA notices under ss 308 and 309 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); and never received a response from the RMA after some months. Can RMAs be sanctioned on the basis of lack of response? What happens to the substance of the complaint?

Federal Court. Does the concept of proportionality play a role in determining whether an exercise of discretionary power was legally unreasonable? Does the concept of legal unreasonableness apply to individual aspects of the fact-finding of a decision-maker, such as credibility findings? Does the concept of proportionality form part of the assessment of whether a credibility finding has been made in accordance with established principles as to illogicality or irrationality?

Federal Court: Section 430 requires AAT to provide written statement of reasons for Part 7-reviewable decisions. In Yusuf, it was held as follows about s 430: "The Tribunal is required, in setting out its reasons for decision, to set out "the findings on any material questions of fact". If it does not set out a finding on some question of fact, that will indicate that it made no finding on that matter; and that, in turn, may indicate that the Tribunal did not consider the matter to be material". Does the same principle apply to s 473EA, which requires the IAA to sets out its reasons for a decision?

Federal Court. In BAL19, FCA decided that s 501 did not apply to protection visa refusals. Does BAL19 also apply to s 501A refusals? Was the decision in BAL19 plainly wrong? Can the Minister "continue to administer the law on their own understanding of what the law is (or what it “should be”), and not as settled in BAL19, or to ... administer the law in a manner which they hope will be settled by the Full Court on appeal"? Subsection 476A(1) gave FCA jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions personally made by the Minister under s 501 and its analogues, but not under s 65. Minister argued that if he failed to make a decision within a reasonable time, that would be a decision under s 65, with the result that FCA did not have jurisdiction to order mandamus in relation to the failure to make a decision within a reasonable time. Did FCA have jurisdiction by reason of the terms "in relation to" in s 476A(1)?

Federal Court. Appellant applied for subclass 485 visa under Graduate Work stream, but without positive skills assessment. Although this was not the case here, FCA discussed whether application would be invalid if it nominated 2 streams. Is a stream or subclass a visa class? If a person applies for a visa class, can a different class of visa be granted? Could the visa be granted under the Post Study stream? In answering the latter question, is it relevant that ImmiAccount: allowed the lodgement under the Graduate Work stream despite the fact that Appellant had answered "no" to the question as to whether he had a positive skills assessment; said that lack of a positive skills assessment "may result" in refusal?