Immigration Case Law Review:

March 2019 & April 2019

 

Relevant case law for March 2019 and April 2019 including a summary and discussion of the most important court decisions handed down in the period, aimed at helping practitioners digest concepts of importance to the industry and their client's cases without having to read lengthy judgements.

  •                   OMARA CPD Activity - Category A Online Workshop                   

    This professional online workshop (OMARA Activity Code WK565) will earn 1 CPD point for OMARA registered migration agents as an OMARA online workshop (category A activity)

  •  What You'll Learn At This Live Online Workshop

  • March 2019

    - The decision of the Federal Court in SZDCD on whether loss of life as a result of losing access to medical treatment is sufficient to support the conclusion that the appellant would be ‘arbitrarily’ deprived of his life for the purposes of the complementary protection under s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in CLR15 on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction in relation to a secondary visa applicant in circumstances where the Minister had refused the primary applicant’s protection visa application but did had not decided the secondary applicant’s application.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in CGA15 on the dangers of administrative decision-makers relying on statistical analysis.

    - The decision of the Federal Court in SZUON holding that the Tribunal has an obligation ‘not to mislead an applicant in a way that deprives the applicant of the opportunity of a real hearing’.                          

    - The decision of the Federal Court in Le holding that a merits review application had been made by the visa applicant despite the fact that the applicant had mistakenly provided the details of the sponsor under the heading ‘details of person applying for review’ on the AAT application form.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Mohammed holding that although an application for visa subclass 820 is ordinarily decided before the respective application for visa subclass 801 is decided, decision makers can reverse that order in some circumstances. We also discuss the potential implications of this decision for subclass 482 and the “right” of 482 applicants to apply to the AAT.

  • April 2019

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Kraues on whether the OMARA has jurisdiction over RMAs based on conduct that falls outside client/agent relationships. This decision also discusses whether a person can be characterised as a client in circumstances where an RMA has not actually provides services to that person.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Kaur holding that a visa applicant was not indifferent to her migration agent’s fraud despite the fact that she knew about the fraud. This decision also discusses the meaning of “indifferent” by reference to the common law.

    - The decision of the Federal Court in Jabbour holding that a “decision” by a delegate not to refer a repeat Ministerial Intervention request to the Minister was judicially reviewable. The decision also discusses the content of the delegate’s duty to make that “decision” reasonably.                                         

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Hong on whether an administrative decision-maker’s duty to consider claims made under s 501CA(4) for revocation of mandatory cancellation of visas is limited to claims that have been clearly articulated or clearly emerged from the materials before that decision-maker.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Snell on whether the AAT, after having made findings of fact in a given matter, could remake those findings in a subsequent matter involving the same parties and circumstances.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Hunt on whether the Minister could use information allegedly obtained in breach of privacy laws in making a decision whether to cancel a visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958.

    - The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in DFQ17 holding that the Minister’s refusal letter which indicated the deadline by which the applicant could validly make an AAT application was invalid. The reason why the letter was invalid is that it indicated the deadline by reference to the legislative provisions as opposed to stating the deadline in absolute terms such as ’13 March 2017’. As a result, a “late” application to the Tribunal was not late. This might have wide and welcome consequences for applicants deemed by the Tribunal to have applied for review too late, even if that occurred years ago.

    - The decision of the Federal Court in Akbar on whether a person who had applied for visa subclass 485 could change his mind and change the nomination occupation before the application was decided.

Online Workshop Details


  • Presenter:

    Sergio Zanotti Stagliorio

    Solicitor and Registered Migration Agent (MARN 1461003)


  •      Upcoming Workshop Sessions

    All Times AEST (Sydney) Time 

  • TBA


Registraton Fee: $49 incl GST - includes 90-minute workshop plus all handouts and downloadable materials

 

Workshops can be accessed from your computer or mobile phone - no microphone or webcam is needed in order to participate and ask questions during the workshop.