System Message:

Australian Immigration Daily News

Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au

  • 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: 1817
  • 0 Comments

High and Federal Court Migration Law Summaries 13 Feb 2020

Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] HCA 3
High Court of Australia
Kiefel CJ; Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon & Edelman JJ
Constitutional law - migration law - two 'special cases' raising questions concerning s51(xix) Constitution - plaintiffs' visas cancelled under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - plaintiffs contended they were outside purview of Migration Act, Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) and s51(xix) Constitution due to their 'special status as a "non-citizen, non-alien"' - plaintiffs claimed they could not be aliens because they were 'Aboriginal persons' - question stated for Court's opinion: 'is the plaintiff an "alien" within the meaning of s51(xix) of the Constitution?' - 'Aboriginal Australians' - 'tripartite test' in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] [1992] HCA 23 - held: Aboriginal Australians were not in reach of '"aliens" power' which s51(xix) of the Constitution conferred - majority could not agree whether one plaintiff (Love) was Aboriginal Australian so could not answer question - Court found one plaintiff (Thoms) was Aboriginal Australian - question answered 'No' in respect of Thoms.
Love
GLD18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 2
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Allsop CJ; Mortimer & Snaden JJ
Migration law - two appeals - appellants were refused protection visas under 'complementary protection criterion' in s36(2)(aa) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act) - issue was whether a person could satisfy the complementary protection criterion if identified harm arose due to separation from family members who 'will not in fact return' with person to 'country of nationality' - whether Federal Circuit Court erred in answering question in negative - whether decision in Mansfield J in SZRSN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 751 (SZRSN) was incorrect with result its application was erroneous - whether SZRN distinguishable - whether error by Tribunal in respect of either or both cases - whether erroneous application of CSV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 699 (CSV15) - whether erroneous application of CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1089 - whether CSV15 correct - whether Tribunal erroneously found s36(2A) Migration Act “does not encompass harm arising from mental illness or harm” - held: appeal dismissed.
GLD18
Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 7
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Logan, Reeves & Derrington JJ
Migration law - delegate of Minister refused to grant applicant Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (partner visa) - Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed delegate’s decision - Federal Circuit Court dismissed review application - whether Tribunal required to take interests of appellant’s child into account ’as a primary consideration’ - whether Tribunal erred in finding appellant and partner, who was appellant’s sponsor, ’had successfully attempted to have a child’ to bolster prospects of appellant obtaining partner visa - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - Minister for Aboriginal affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 - held: appeal dismissed.
Singh
Benrabah v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 4
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Gleeson, Lee & Wheelahan JJ
Migration law - delegate of Minister declined to revoked cancellation of appellant's Class AZ Subclass 866 Protection visa under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed delegate’s decision - judicial review application dismissed - appellant appealed - appellant contended Tribunal erroneously failed to take relevant considerations into account, erred in law’s interpretation or application, and erroneously took irrelevant consideration into account - Ministerial Direction 65 - held: appeal dismissed.
Benrabah

Source:  Benchmark

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:
0

Comments

  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Friday, 29 March 2024
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Bizcover Banner
Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measure...
Continue Reading...
Migration (Class of Persons for Nil VAC-LIN 24/008) Specification 2024
The Migration (Class of Persons for Nil VAC—LIN 24...
Continue Reading...
Pacific Engagement (Subclass 192) visa ballot
Introducing the Pacific Engagement Visa Initiative...
Continue Reading...