Australian Immigration Daily News

Sometimes there is hidden in something that appears to be “ordinary” something which might actually be truly extraordinary.

So it is with a decision that was recently handed down by the Full Court, DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration (2019) FCAFC 64 (18 April 2019).

This case dealt with the seemingly “mundane” or “boring” question of whether a letter that had been sent by the Department informing an applicant for a protection visa of the refusal of that application had properly and correctly notified the applicant concerning the time period or deadline within which an application for review could be made.

If you have been spending sleepless nights pondering the meaning of the expression in PIC 4020 "false or misleading in a material particular", then you will welcome knowing about a very recent (yesterday!) decision from the Full Court of the Federal Court.

The case is Singh v Minister for Immigration and border Protection (2019) FCAFC 22.

The decision confirmed the interpretation of the phrase that dates back to an earlier Full Court decision in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Dela Cruz (1992) FCA 71; (1992) 34 FCR 348.

As the saying goes, "it was too good to last" or "too good to be true".

Or as Joni Mitchell sang "they paved Paradise and put up a parking lot".

Just recently, we had posted news of the decision of Justice Greenwood in Brown v Minister for Home Affairs (No. 2) where His Honour held that the 2015 legislation that amalgamated the Migration Review and Refugee Review Tribunals with the pre-existing Administrative Appeals Tribunal had given the AAT power to extend the deadline for the filing of applications for merits review to the Tribunal.

I am writing to make readers of the MA site aware that there has been a significant decision from Judge Riley of the Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne concerning the genuine temporary entrant requirement which relates to Direction No. 53, now superseded by Direction No. 69.. 

The decision was in a case called Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCCA 3423 (23 November 2018)  which can be accessed by clicking on this link.

In brief, Judge Riley held that if the Tribunal fails to take into account a "mandatory consideration" that is listed in Direction No. 53 (which binds all decision-makers in their assessment of whether an applicant satisfies the GTE), then jurisdictional error may have occurred.

I am very pleased to announce the launch of an on-line newsletter for the professional community of Registered Migration Agents and migration lawyers.

The newsletter will be called "The Migration Messenger" and can be accessed at migrationmessenger.com

The Migration Messenger will carry on the valuable news service that I have been providing through the Migration Alliance Website since March 2015, where I have posted about 500 in-depth articles on various current migration topics.