GTE: applicants on notice of Direction 69 factors; previous tourist visa probative?

Federal Court. In the context of assessing cl 500.212 (GTE), are merits review applicants necessarily on notice of the relevance of the matters set out in Direction 69 due to the very fact that they are so set out? Was it legally unreasonable for the AAT to treat what it found to be false statements made in a previous tourist visa application made by the Appellant as probative of an intention to stay in Australia beyond the conclusion of the student visa?

In the context of assessing whether Appellant satisfied cl 500.212 (GTE) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), the Tribunal wrote: "The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has a dream to open her own dessert restaurant in the future however the applicant was not able to explain in detail to the Tribunal about the proposed future plans".

Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Was the Tribunal's  language infelicitous in that it is "an unusual use of the expression 'not able to explain in detail' to ascribe that failure to circumstances where there was no specific attempt to elicit the information, or no request to explain"?

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", can it nevertheless be said that "the Tribunal is not required to press the appellant for details that she did not give and it was obviously incumbent upon her to provide the evidence that she wished to rely upon in support of the claims for the visa"?

Question 3: Can it be said that a merits review applicant is necessarily on notice of the relevance of the matters set out in Direction 69 due to the very fact that they are so set out?

Question 4: Can it be said that "the Tribunal did not need to inform the appellant about its reservations in relation to her evidence at any point during the hearing and although a Tribunal must advise of any adverse conclusion not obviously open on the known material, it is, of course, not otherwise required to expose its thought processes or provisional views for comment"?

Question 5: Was it illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable for the Tribunal to treat what it found to be false statements made in a previous tourist visa application made by the Appellant as probative of an intention to stay in Australia beyond the conclusion of the student visa?

The FCA answered those questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.

Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.

Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.

Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.

If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.