Legislation Updates

Migration Legislation Tracker

A single source about the status of pieces of legislation, Bills, commencement dates, disallowances, etc

New instrument for RPC holders

Section 278A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides that a restricted legal practitioner can apply for an extension of the period of 2 years within which to be an RMA. The MARA can give an extension if it considers it reasonable to do so in the circumstances, including (but not limited to) the ones to be set out in an instrument. The instrument has now been registered.

Citizenship: special residence requirement

"The purpose of the instrument is to specify: activities for subparagraph 22A(1)(a)(i) of the Act, organisations for paragraph 22A(1)(b) of the Act, and kinds of work for paragraph 22B(1)(a) of the [Citizenship] Act."

Case Law Updates

AAT bound by sentencing remarks? WKMZ authoritative despite AJL20?

Federal Court. In the context of s 501CA(4), was the AAT bound by the sentencing remarks of the District Court? Does the decision of the Full Court in WKMZ remain authoritative despite the High Court decision in AJL20?

Cl 13.1.2(1): separate risk assessments for each kind of offending?

Federal Court (FCA). According to the FCA, the effect of cl 13.1.2(1) of Direction 79 was to oblige decision-makers "to have regard cumulatively to the nature of harm should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the non-citizen doing so". Does cl 13.1.2(1) require decision makers to "engage in separate risk assessments for each kind of offending in which an applicant has historically engaged"?

GTE: incentive to remain in Australia? Obiter in MZAPC limited to “ultimate decision”?

Federal Circuit Court. Although cl 9.d of Direction 69 refers only to the negative effect of military obligations in an applicant's home country, does the GTE criterion in cl 500.212(a) also encompass any positive effects of such obligations? Was the obiter dicta in MZACP at [33] and [181] according to which errors in the form legal unreasonableness are material by definition and therefore jurisdictional limited to errors in the "ultimate decision", therefore excluding errors in findings of fact?

Copyrighted Image

error: Content is protected !!