FBP InternationalFBP InternationalFBP International

AAT Review

Book Your Free Consultation

    AAT Review

    Administrative Appeals Tribunal Abolished and Replaced

    The AAT was a body tasked with reviewing administrative decisions made under federal laws.

    As on December 16, 2022 Albenese Government has abolished the government body Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and will be replaced by a different body. It is not known if the new body will have a different name. 
    The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) will be eliminated, according to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, and will be replaced by “an administrative review body that serves the interests of the Australian community”

    Source: 9news read more on the news

    All current members of the AAT will be invited to re-apply for positions in the new body.
    The replacement will seek to resolve a massive backlog of cases quickly, provide consistent funding and make the merits review process more accessible.

    A specific taskforce under the Attorney-department General’s will lead the replacement for the AAT.
    All matters before the AAT will continue, and any petitions for reviews that have already been submitted do not need to be submitted again.

    AAT Review

    Roles and features of the previous body (AAT)

    The role of the AAT Immigration and Refugees Division was to review decisions made by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). The AAT reserves the right to affirm, change or ignore DIBP’s decision or refer the matter back to DIBP for reconsideration with specific instructions. The AAT could review a variety of visa-related decisions, including denials and cancellations. Decisions were based on the merits of each individual case.

    Your request for review MUST be submitted to the AAT within the requested timeframe. The letter you receive from DIBP regarding the decision to deny or cancel your visa will mention the exact timeframe within which you must submit your reconsideration request if you take this step. In most cases, the relevant time limit for a visa application was 21 days from the date of the decision to refuse the visa application and 7 days from the date of the decision to cancel your visa application.

    The AAT could have decided to:

    Affirm DIBP’s decision, which means it agrees with DIBP’s decision and will not be changed.

    Set aside DIBP’s decision, which means the decision was subject to change. In this case, the AAT had the option to replace the DIBP decision

    Remit DIBP’s decision, which means the matter would be returned to DIBP for review. The AAT could then issue instructions to the DIBP that it might take into account when reviewing its decision.

    Substantial review of immigration decisions has been around since 1982 through the Immigration Review Board. This Commission was established by executive order and was replaced by the Statutory Immigration Control Court (IRT) in 1989, later renamed the Migration Control Court (MRT). ) on 1 July 1999, as part of the Administrative Appeals Court (AAT) on 1 July 2015. The former Asylum Review Court (RRT) established in 1993 also incorporated with the AAT on July 1, 2015 under Immigration and Refugee Status, and review decisions about refugee status and refugee protection visa applications. In addition, the Immigration Review Authority (IAA) was established in April 2015, as a separate office within the Refugee Review Court (RRT), which from 1 July 2015 became a separate agency. independent agency in the AAT. There are limited appeals from the AAT to the Federal Court.

    Formerly the Tribunal for Immigration Tribunal (MRT) and the Refugee Tribunal (RRT), now part of the AAT, have the primary jurisdiction to review the merits of certain decisions made under immigration laws and regulations. The Court of Administrative Appeals (AAT) reviews immigration decisions on merit. The Tribunal’s job is to make the “correct and desirable” decision in a particular case before them. This is a much broader task than the work of the Court of Appeals, which only deals with the question of whether there is a legal error in reaching an amended decision.

    In contrast, substantive review is not about correcting mistakes made by the original decision maker, but about taking the decision back (“standing on the same foot”).
    The content review board decides for itself all questions of fact and judgment. They can consider any evidence that will help them make a more accurate and appropriate decision, including evidence that the plaintiff did not present to the original decision maker. Based on this new evidence, they were able to supersede their own findings about reality even if the original decision maker’s findings were “true” based on the evidence available at the time.
    Furthermore, even if the court does not identify any factual (or legal) error in the original decision, the court may supersede its own judgment on how to implement any decision to make better decisions. Courts can also decide for themselves whether to adopt a ministerial policy in a particular case.
    The actual and discretionary decisions of these courts are subject to review by federal and superior courts. However, the general principle that the reopening court cannot substitute its decision for the decision under consideration applies. If it considers that an actual or discretionary decision is at fault of the law, the court will return the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction for review. Thus, in practice, performance review boards have the final say in migration decision-making based on factual and discretionary questions, including how any policy should be applied. any involvement in the exercise of discretion.

    In order to determine a more accurate and appropriate decision in a particular case, courts are also often required to decide questions of law (especially to interpret the provisions of the Act and Regulations). ). However, constitutional principles (separation of powers) limit the extent to which the courts can be empowered to make binding decisions on legal principles without the need for Parliament to give them the power. The judiciary of the Commonwealth is void. However, these exact limits are still unclear.

    The Immigration Bureau’s main voluntary decision makers and examiners must notify the decision in the following ways:

    • Send or leave a notice of decision to the address of the last place of residence submitted by the applicant to the Minister.
    • Delivery of notifications to applicants or persons nominated by applicants who can provide information about the application

    Notifications sent within Australia are considered to have been received 7 days after the date of the document, and notifications sent to and from addresses outside Australia are considered to have been received 21 days after the date of the document. Immigration law refers to “the address where the applicant will reside during the application process”, so P.O. Sending a notification to the box does not apply to immigration law.

    The following decisions can be confirmed by AAT.

    • Decision to deny material visas to persons subject to Article 48 restrictions due to refusal or revocation of previous visas
    • Decision on Rejection of Immigration Permission Application Dated December 1989
    • The decision to deny a substantive visa when the applicant is in an immigration camp is a decision to deny the visa by a secretary or an officer holding or holding a senior management position when the decision is communicated.
    • Rejection of protective visas for some applicants, including unauthorized sea entry into Australia after August 13, 2012, as a quickly verifiable decision by the Immigration Service (IAA) within the AAT. Decision.
    • Refugee decisions made before September 1, 1994 and decisions to refuse or revoke protective visas made after September 1, 1994

    The decision to deport a person, the decision to refuse or revoke a visa for personality reasons according to Section 501, and the decision to revoke a business visa according to Section 135 can be reviewed by AAT.

    Offshore decisions that refuse to issue visas if this subclass does not have criteria that require nomination or sponsorship cannot be reviewed. The decision regarding the invalidity of the application does not constitute a visa denial and cannot be confirmed. We cannot confirm your decision to refuse a nomination or sponsorship.

    In addition, the Minister has the authority to issue a final certificate that prevents the decision from being reviewed if it is deemed to be against the public interest.

    • Changing decisions, or changing decisions, as they affect Australia’s security, defense or international affairs.

    For review of decisions, such reviews require review or review of decisions by the Cabinet or Cabinet Committee by the Review Officer or the Court.

    Immigration law strictly defines those who can request a review of immigration decisions. Review applicants must be in Australia when a review request is made.

    For offshore decisions, review rights are limited to Australian sponsors or recommenders, or Australian relatives of visa applicants and are not granted to the applicant himself. The applicant must also be a relative with respect to the order.

    If you have recently been denied a visa, you will need to receive a letter from the Immigration Bureau indicating the number of days you must exercise your examination rights.

    The application deadline for AAT is as follows.

    1. I) If a reviewable decision in subsection 338 (2), (3), (3A), (4), or (7A) is obtained, 28 days after the decision is published.
    2. II) If a reviewable decision is made under Article 338 (5), (6), (7) or (8)-70 days after notification of the decision.

    III) If the MR verifiable decision falls under subsection 338 (9)-the number of days required in connection with the decision in question for the purposes of this subsection after notification of the decision.

    The review period will not run until the decision is provided to the person. Therefore, not making a decision does not affect the effectiveness of the decision. The court is not authorized to extend the application deadline.

    In addition:

    • Two business days after notification of a decision regarding the refusal of a non-citizen’s bridge visa detained for this refusal or the cancellation of a bridge visa held by a non-citizen detained for this suspension.
    • A decision to refuse a substantive visa or to revoke a visa if the applicant is in an immigration camp (except for a decision to revoke a bridge visa held by a non-citizen in the immigration camp as a result of its suspension) After 2 business days notice; or if the applicant indicates within 2 business days that he / she intends to request a review 5 business days after such notice.

    AAT may confirm, change, cancel, or reject the decision to be reviewed by instructing the applicant to meet certain visa criteria.

    AAT has all the authority and discretion given to those who decide to undergo examination. MRI should not be intended to make decisions that are not permitted by law or regulation.

    AAT can see all of this, including the other things above.

    • Business visa expiration decision
    • Deportation decision based on criminal law
    • The decision to refuse or cancel the visa for personality reasons
    • Decision on refusal or revocation of a protective visa for the reasons set forth in Article 1F, Article 32 or Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the 1951 Convention (Article 500)

    Prior to 1992, AAT’s jurisdiction over criminal deportation decisions was limited to either confirming the decision or refusing to review it in accordance with the recommendations.

    AAT currently has decision-making power on all matters that can be investigated under immigration law, including criminal deportation. However, if the seriousness of the situation suggests that it is in the “national interest”, the Minister of Immigration can act personally:

    • Exclude review by the AAT of criminal deportation decision,
    • Refusing or cancel a visa on character grounds,
    • Refuse or cancel a protection visa

    AAT is more hostile than other specialized immigration courts.

    The Minister of Immigration may, at his discretion, supersede more favorable MRT and RRT decisions. However, the Minister is not required to consider whether such discretion should be exercised in a particular case, and such decisions are not subject to substantive or judicial review except in the High Court of Australia.