Search by Keyword

Digests

Where application made by appellant's migration agent contained no statement of reasons for application, does non-compliance with requirement of Section 29(1)(c) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) result in invalidity?

When forming state of satisfaction whether "another reason" existed to revoke cancellation of respondent's visa, is the Minister required to personally read some or all of respondent's representations?

Did delegate fail to comply with Direction No 90 made under Section 499(1) Migration Act, 1958 (Cth)?

Where there was no real prospect of removal of Plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in reasonably foreseeable future, was Plaintiff's detention authorised by Sections 189(1) and 196(1) Migration Act, 1958 (Cth)?

Did the AAT fail to comply with paragraph 8.3(3) of Ministerial Direction No. 90 by failing to consider the children’s best interests and the children’s best interests individually?

Does the strictures of Section 36(1C) Migration Act, 1958 (Cth) involve a multifactorial assessment?

Due to generality of appellant’s claim and absence of any supporting evidence, is the respondent Minister required to undertake quantitative or qualitative assessment of risk?

Was the denial of procedural fairness in not giving Appellant the opportunity to address relevance of incidents of domestic violence by the AAT material so as to amount to jurisdictional error?

Applicant Disputes Tribunal's Cancellation of Visa

Applicant Disputes Tribunal's Cancellation of Visa

Parties Dispute Australian Citizenship of the Plaintiff

Parties Dispute Australian Citizenship of the Plaintiff

Parties Dispute Lawfulness of Applicant's Detention

Parties Dispute Lawfulness of Applicant's Detention

Plaintiff Seeks Revocation of Decision to Cancel Visa

Plaintiff Seeks Revocation of Decision to Cancel Visa

Where plaintiff suffered from mental health issues, was homeless and not fluent in English, was the delegate's decision unreasonable under Section 62 of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth)?

Where appellant disclosed a criminal conviction in a visa application but had failed to do so in an earlier visa application, was apprehended bias on the part of the AAT established?

Is the Tribunal under duty to inquire as to the best interests of any minor children affected by the cancellation decision? Was the failure to inquire material?

Did the Tribunal err in failing to consider the evidence of the expert concerning the effect on the appellant’s young children of refusing to grant the visa?

Did the Tribunal misconstrue cl 500.212 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) by not considering the criterion in subcl (b) and subcl (c) having determined the appellant failed to meet subcl (a)?

Did the Tribunal overlook the Appellant’s representation or claim in respect of her two pet dogs even though Appellant’s claim did not feature in the case that the Appellant sought to make out before the Tribunal?

On a proper construction of Section 500(6H) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), did the AAT err in in not allowing oral evidence from witness where applicant had not provided Minister with a written statement outlining evidence of that witness?

Did the Tribunal err in its approach to weighing considerations required to be taken into account by Direction 79?

Did the Tribunal's failure to consider representation on inter alia the appellant’s mother relevant to the Tribunal’s attribution of weight to two relevant considerations under s 499(1) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth) amount to jurisdictional error?

Visa Applications' Validity Disputed by the Parties

Visa Applications' Validity Disputed by the Parties

Applicant Seeks Judicial Review of Tribunal's Refusal of her Visa

Applicant Seeks Judicial Review of Tribunal's Refusal of her Visa

Was the Minister satisfied that a ground for cancelling a visa exists and that it would be in the public interest to do so under Section 116(1)(e)(i) and Section 133C(3)(b) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth), respectively?

SSL Certificates