Paul Cutler's Migration Case Law Blog
New Direction 99: Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501
A new Ministerial Direction No 99 (visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa) commenced on 3 March 2023. This Direction replaces Direction 90.
Under the old Direction 90 the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia were considered under other considerations, under this new Direction 99 this has now been added as a primary consideration under Part 2 Section 8, with the effect that these considerations should generally be given more weight by decision-makers.
The principles under Subsection 5.2 have also been amended with the following paragraph added under 5.2(5):
With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
I have previously blogged about being an alien by “the barest of threads“. I borrowed that title from an academic paper which looked at the position of Stefan Nystrom (who had lived in Australia since he was four weeks old, but who was nevertheless sent back to Sweden, a country with which he had no connection).
Hopefully the new direction will help some of these long term residents who are effectively “home grown” problems despite their foreign citizenship.
Creative commons acknowledgement for the photograph.
Complete but not clear
The combined effect of section 66(2)(d) of the Migration Act and the associated regulations is that there is a strict (non-extendable) 21 day period in which an application for merits review can be lodged with the AAT. If an application is made outside of that time the AAT is without jurisdiction. While that seems simple enough there are a number of Full Court cases where it has been argued that...
Jurisdiction and the risotto
Much to the frustration of many clients, fact finding by the AAT is not normally able to be challenged in judicial review proceedings in the courts. One very limited exception to that proposition is if the fact finding is "irrational, illogical and not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds". Those grounds are very difficult to make out. There are at least two...
Not necessarily de facto
Makhmudkhodjaeva v Minister [2020] FCAFC 88 is a recent Full Court case about refusal to approve a sponsorship in relation to a child visa. If the child's mother had a partner (either de facto or by marriage) then that person (Mr M) would need to meet the character test. The interesting issue in this case is that the mother denied she was in de facto relationship despite the facts that: ...
AAT Procedure
From the time that an application for review is lodged in the AAT to the time it is determined in a hearing is "around 470 days" (or about 15-16 months). There are however, provisions for "priority processing" and for a "fast track decision". These are both separate processes. The guidelines for priority processing are set out in a President's Direction. The requirements for a fast track...