Paul Cutler's Migration Case Law Blog
Failure to Cooperate
The legislative attempt to make failure to cooperate a criminal offence passed the Lower House but not the Senate on 26 March 2024. The Migration Amendment (Removal and other Measures) Bill 2024 creates a new class of people called “removal pathway non-citizens”. In some circumstances the Minister can give directions to those people to assist with their own removal from Australia. Their failure to cooperate will be an offence.
When all of this was newsworthy at the end of March there were media reports about a pending High Court case. That case is ASF17 v Minister which was heard on 17 April 2024 and judgment is reserved.
I have read the submission of the parties which are on the High Court website. Thankfully the High Court rules compel brevity.
Some brief facts
The appellant is a citizen of Iran detained in Australia. He has been detained by officers of the Commonwealth for over 10 years under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). He is bisexual. The Commonwealth accepts that sexual intercourse between males is illegal in Iran and can attract the death penalty
The appellant’s case was that, at all relevant times, the Commonwealth: (1) knew Iran would not issue travel papers for the involuntary removal of one of its citizens from Australia; (2) knew the appellant would not go to Iran voluntarily; and (3) never considered possible pathways to removal from Australia other than to Iran. The appellant accepted that, if he cooperated by taking certain steps, he could be removed to Iran.
The Applicant had requested removal from Australia to some country other than Iran (to no avail). The stalemate between ASF17 and the Commonwealth is obvious. His failure to cooperate is making it impossible to remove him and there is nowhere else that he can be sent.
The issue – cooperate
As we now know from NZYQ detention can’t be indefinite and becomes unlawful when there is no real prospect of the removal of the alien from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. The issue before the High Court is basically about whether his continued detention is lawful or not when ASF17 is not cooperating in his removal.
There are a number of authorities referred to in the written submissions of the parties (see Al Masri (2003), WAIS (2002) SPKB (2003)) which basically say that an applicant can’t create a circumstance which negatives any reasonable likelihood that he can be removed in the foreseeable future by withholding his consent or cooperation to a particular avenue for removal. In effect, you can’t take advantage of a situation that you have created.
My personal view on this is that ASF17’s failure to cooperate will be fatal to his case. If that turns out to be correct I don’t see much point in making failure to cooperate an offence (which would just result in further lawful criminal detention).
Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.
Clearly articulated #2
Whether a claim is clearly articulated or not is becoming a hot topic after the M1 decision. In HRZN v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCAFC 133, the Vietnamese appellant had lived in Australia since he was a child and had two adult Australian citizen children. His visa was cancelled on character grounds in trying to persuade the AAT that there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation he...
Clearly articulated?
In my last post, I blogged about the High Court case of M1 and what was said about the duty of decision makers (and the AAT) to consider a "clearly articulated claim". The question for the Full Federal Court in Knight v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCAFC 127 was effectively "how clearly" does a claim have to articulated? Ms Knight is (another) New Zealander with a character cancellation...
M1 – decision making
The High Court case of Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 deals primarily with how decision makers should deal with non-refoulement (protection) claims in the context of whether a visa cancellation on character grounds should be revoked or affirmed. This is one of the "other considerations" which arise for consideration in Direction 90. There is a distinction between...
Interests of grandchildren
KXXH v Minister [2022] FCAFC 111 is another case of a Kiwi with a character cancellation problem. This case was about whether or not the interests of his grandchildren had been properly considered and highlights the difficulties in trying to find a jurisdictional error amongst Tribunal reasons. I let some of the paragraphs from the judgment speak for themselves... This is a case where, to adapt...