System Message:

Christopher Levingston Blog

Australian Immigration Law blog

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 518
  • 1 Comment

Australian Citizenship Instructions valid or invalid?

A recent decision of the Full Federal Court will be of interest to practitioners

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2019/2019fcafc0079

Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79 by reason of its discussion of the role of the ACI's  (Australian Citizenship Instructions)

The ACI's operate in much the same way as PAM and "inform" the decision making of the Department.

The issue in this case was the following instruction:

 s 5.12.5 of the Citizenship Instructions:

Children under 16 applying individually in their own right would usually not be approved under s24 unless they are permanent residents at the time of application and decision and also meet the following policy guidelines:

•    are under 16 when applying, living with a responsible parent who is not an Australian citizen and consents to the application, and the child would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage - see section 5.17 Ministerial discretion - significant hardship or disadvantage (s22(6)) or

It was found that the words " would usually not be approved" did not constitute a rule or policy without regards to the merits of the case and were thus permissible and not ultra vires the Act.

The relevant context was determined by the threshold statement underpinning the ACIs as follows:

The role of the ACIs is to support the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The instructions provide guidance on policy in relation to the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Regulations. Decision makers should be mindful that policy must not be applied inflexibly. Policy cannot constrain the exercise of delegated powers under the Act.

That being the case absent any evidence of application of a rule or policy expressed in peremptory terms the ACI's stand.

 

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:
2

Comments

  • Guest
    Chris McGrath Thursday, 06 June 2019

    I remember many years ago the then Minister for Immigration made a comment in relation to a new category which allowed people illegally in Australia to apply for PR based on having strong compassionate grounds. The Minister made the comment that he would not expect many cases to be approved under this new category. The court (Federal I think but maybe the High Court) said that the Minister cannot attempt to curtail an officer making a positive decision by using words in the way he did. If strong compassionate grounds were found, the visa should issue regardless of how many times it presented and regardless of the Minister's comment (direction?).

Leave your comment

Guest Tuesday, 18 June 2019
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Bizcover Banner
Annual Federal Courts and Tribunals Fee Increases from 1 July 2019
The following email has been received today from t...
Continue Reading...
SA Business Migration program quotas have been met for 2018/19
Immigration SA has announced that they have met th...
Continue Reading...
Out of time at the AAT? Out of luck? Not necessarily...
In a Migration Law Updates email yesterday titled ...
Continue Reading...
World Refugee Day - Global attitudes towards refugees - June 2019 - Report
Below is a report on the global attitude towards r...
Continue Reading...
Insurance House suffers massive cyber attack
Migration Agents who have taken out Professional I...
Continue Reading...