Login / Join
You are here: Home 
Immigration Daily News High and Federal Court Migration Law Summaries 13 Feb 2020
Immigration Daily News High and Federal Court Migration Law Summaries 13 Feb 2020Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 1931
- 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
Immigration blog
The Migration (Specification of Study and English ...
The Migration (Arrangements for Temporary Work (In...
Migration (Subclass 403 (MATES Stream) Visa Pre-application Process) Determination (LIN 24/069) 2024
Australia's latest move in streamlining visa appli...
The "Migration Visa Pre-Application Process Charge...
The Migration Amendment (Mobility Arrangements for...