Paul Cutler's Migration Case Law Blog
Section 48A Bar
Is there a section 48A bar arising from the following facts:
- The Applicant applied for a protection visa in 2013;
- The application was refused in 2014;
- In September 2017, the AAT affirmed the delegate’s decision;
- On 12 September 2017 (the day following the AAT decision) the Assistance Minister used the power in s417(1) to grant a three month visitor visa with a no further stay condition on it; and
- On 12 October 2017 the Applicant applied for a second protection visa.
That second application was found to be invalid on the basis that there was a section 48A bar which had not been waived. An application for judicial review was made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia where Judge Laing found that there was a s48A bar. The matter then went to the Full Federal Court (see Fel17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 153).
It was a 2:1 majority decision in the Full Court:
- In seven succinct paragraphs Justice Snaden found that: “There is nothing about the subject matter, scope or purpose of the Act that should require or suggest that the exercise of power under s 417(1) operates so as to revive the by-then-extinguished legal effect of the decision whose affirmation the Minister has seen fit to replace with something more favourable.”; and
- Unfortunately, Justices Halley and Abraham found that: “In short, s 48A of the Migration Act prohibits the making of a further protection visa application where one has already been made and refused. That is subject only to s 48B, where the Minister can personally exercise his power to consider another application if it is considered in the public interest to do so. That power was not exercised. The Assistant Minister substituting the Tribunal’s Decision and granting a different visa, a three month visitor visa, pursuant to s 417(1) of the Migration Act, does not mean that the appellant has no longer been refused a protection visa for the purposes of s 48A.”
Creative commons acknowledgement for the photograph.
Time in Notices
I am often surprised that there are so many cases about defective "statutory notices" and it really shows that any notice your client receives should be scrutinised to make sure it is compliant. In Lewis v Minister [2022] FCA 205 (another 501CA character cancellation matter) two invitations to make representations to revoke the cancellation were issued, some few weeks apart. The invitations were...
The 4020 bias case
In 2015, the Applicant was convicted of stalking and fined for common assault (it was unclear if that was a conviction or not). In his 2016, 2017 and 2018 visa applications the question about "any convictions" was answered "no". However, in his 2019 application for a 485 visa the 2015 conviction was disclosed and this led inexorably to a refusal on the basis of PIC 4020 (false and misleading...
Out of time
Section 477 Migration Act provides a 35 day time limit on an appeal to the (former) Federal Circuit Court. Unlike reviews in the AAT that time can be extended if its "necessary in the interests of the administration of justice" to do so. In BTI15 v Minister [2022] FCAFC 49 the Applicant was 10 months and 29 days out of time. The longer the time, the more “exceptional” the circumstances have...
Character and foreign sentences
The Minister isn't often an appellant from an AAT decision. However, when the AAT found that Ms Darnia-Wilson passed the character test despite a foreign conviction it was a "bridge too far". The decision in Minister v Darnia-Wilson [2022] FCAFC 28 (heard by a full court at first instance) is interesting for 3 reasons: Reason 1 The law in respect of foreign judgments and the character test was...