Federal Court. Does s 98: "extend to a visa applicant who has relied on a migration agent to complete a visa application form where the agent perpetrates a fraud on the visa applicant and the applicant wishes to establish that the visa application itself was consequently vitiated"; "fix a non-citizen with the consequences of a migration agent filling out a form with incorrect or incomplete information that may result in visa cancellation"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that, "where there is an allegation of apprehended bias it is necessary for an appeal court to determine that matter first because, if the claim is made out, the appeal court should order a retrial without considering the merits of any other grounds"?
Question 2: Is it "well settled that excessive intervention by a judge, including making unreasonable comments about counsel’s capacity, may give rise to apprehended bias"?
Question 3: Can it be said that "robust questioning of counsel is generally acceptable unless it is excessive in the particular circumstances"?
Question 4: Does s 98 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "extend to a visa applicant who has relied on a migration agent to complete a visa application form where the agent perpetrates a fraud on the visa applicant and the applicant wishes to establish that the visa application itself was consequently vitiated"?
Question 5: Does s 98 "fix a non-citizen with the consequences of a migration agent filling out a form with incorrect or incomplete information that may result in visa cancellation, or conversely, consideration and refusal of a visa application a non-citizen did not, in fact, authorise"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: