Paul Cutler's Migration Case Law Blog
Remitted
You may remember that the High Court remitted QYFM to a differently constituted Full Federal Court after it found that Justice Bromich should have recused himself. I have previously blogged about the recusal decision.
When the matter arrived back in the Full Court the original grounds of appeal were “jettisoned” and leave was sought to rely on six new ones. The appellant was also granted leave to rely on the AAT transcript which had not been before the original Full Court. That transcript revealed that the Appellant (who was self represented in the AAT) had been given a warning about the privilege against self incrimination. One of those warnings arose in the context of a reference from a former employer WS. Apart from being unsure of WS’s gender the following occurred:
SENIOR MEMBER: All right. And how do you know [WS]?
WITNESS: I know him from a long way back, so [WS] is a long way back.
SENIOR MEMBER: Okay. And what do you mean a long way back, is that a friendship or did you work for him or how do you know each other?
WITNESS: It’s a friend – he’s a friend.
SENIOR MEMBER: Oh he’s a friend?
WITNESS: Yes.
SENIOR MEMBER: So have you worked for [WS]?
WITNESS: No.
WITNESS: No, I have not worked for him (indistinct).
SENIOR MEMBER: All right. Well why does [WS] then say in his letter, he was with us from July 2011 to December 2012 and his high work ethic and leadership potential was realised, resulting in [the appellant] being quickly promoted to warehouse supervisor, if you haven’t worked for him, how can it be that he said these things?
WITNESS: I think I must ask him what do they call it? I must ask him some character reference and that’s what he was referring to so (indistinct) people to – (indistinct) people as, you know, helping them – yes, you know, as a friendship helping and that’s why I think he might have meant it that way. But I have no word for it.
SENIOR MEMBER: So has [WS] provided false information to the tribunal, saying that you had worked for him?
WITNESS: It could be so – – –
SENIOR MEMBER: But … you provided these letters to the tribunal in support of your case, why have you provided something that’s false?
Things only got worse when later that day, the Tribunal telephoned WS. The transcript records, in essence, his evidence that he had never known the appellant. The Tribunal then asked whether the appellant had “any questions at all of the witness”. The appellant replied: “No”. This led the Senior Member to say: ” … I have some serious doubts … that you have provided statements that are true and accurate“.
Whatever the legal merits (or not) of this case were, credibility issues like the one created for himself were very unhelpful to the application!
Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.
Double Dipping?
XXBN's partner visa was cancelled under 501CA Migration Act after a series of domestic violence incidents, breaches of ADVO's and ultimately several assault charges relating to his partner and her sister. The complication in the facts was that his partner (and her sister) had both given evidence that they had forgiven him. They also both provided statements in support of the cancellation being...
(Un)reasonable
It’s not controversial that if Applicants are unresponsive to the Minister’s requests for information a delegate can exercise the discretion (under s62 Migration Act) to refuse the visa. The recent single judge (Gordon J) High Court decision of Plaintiff S183 v Minister [2022] HCA 15 demonstrates that the discretion has to be exercised reasonably. Plaintiff S183 was a Turkish lady who feared...
Family violence did not arise
Generally spouse visas are provisional for 2 years before they become permanent. This is to weed out the non-genuine or short term relationships. There is an exception to the 2 year rule if there is family violence. In Minister v Gupta [2022] FCAFC 51 the Full Court had to resolve an issue about the construction of 100.221(4) which provides inter alia: (a) the applicant first entered Australia...
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction (the power to decide) is fundamental to all proceedings and applications. Sometimes, particularly in courts where power is limited by statute it can also become very complicated. The term "accrued" jurisdiction is often used without appreciating where the limits lie. In FJE20 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 45 the applicant sought a number of injunctions (in relation to his...