Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Could the applicant’s representations in relation to rehabilitation "be properly engaged with if he relied on evidence of having completed six separate courses (plus counselling) and the Tribunal only took account of the evidence relating to three of those courses"? In assessing whether an error is material, should it be assumed that the administrative decision-maker approached the review with an open mind?

Federal Court (Full Court). Did para 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90 require that there must be medical certification in order for a non-citizen’s “health” to be taken into account under that paragraph? Can it be said that para 9.3(1) applied "only to the impact on a victim of the perpetrator remaining in Australia, and excluding consideration by a decision-maker of the impact upon a victim of an offender being removed from Australia"?

Federal Court. The applicant was notified of the intention to consider cancelling his visa under s 501(2), based on the "2008 conviction". The Minister did not cancel the visa, after which the applicant was convicted of further offences. The Minister then cancelled the visa under s 501(2), based on the 2008 conviction, but not the further convictions. Due to Makasa, the reliance on the same conviction was erroneous. Was the error nevertheless immaterial, as the further convictions (if they had been relied upon) would have formed an independent basis upon which the applicant failed the character test?

Federal Court. In NZYQ, the High Court overruled its decision in Al-Kateb. Here, at the time of the Minister's decision, Al-Kateb was still considered good law. Did the Minister's reliance on Al-Kateb shield his decision from jurisdictional error, as it represented the law at the time? Or has NZYQ rather overruled Al-Kateb ab initio (i.e. with retrospective effect)?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can a subclass 485 visa applicant who nominated a visa stream in the visa application form seek to satisfy the criteria in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) for the other stream?

Federal Court. The Applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival, made a request for Ministerial intervention under s 46A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Before determining that request, the Applicant was told that he would be removed from Australia. In an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain his removal, did the balance of convenience favour the respondents because removal would frustrate the duty under s 198?

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?

Federal Court. Was the Minister's decision under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "legally unreasonable in that he failed to consider (or deferred consideration of) the applicant’s protection claims, despite the applicant being unable to make a protection application by reason of being barred by operation of s 48A of the Act"?

Federal Circuit Court: the 'error made by the Tribunal was that it stopped short of assessing whether it was “unlikely” that the grant of the visa would result in undue cost or prejudice. Its analysis was entirely focused on the possibility'

If an applicant nominates an occupation in a subclass 485 visa application form and then seeks to change the occupation before the decision, the change can only be made if it stems from a mistake, as opposed to a change of mind; The use of a "change of circumstance" (as opposed to an "incorrect information") form might suggest that the change stems from a change of mind