The Review contains news about the AAT and summaries of decisions of interest.

What type of decisions can the AAT make?

The AAT can review decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth Acts and legislative instruments. The AAT makes a decision after considering the information we’ve been given and the law, usually after holding a hearing.

When the AAT reviews a decision, we can choose to affirm, vary, set aside or remit the decision. For an explanation of what these terms mean, and more information on the types of decisions we make, please click below.

Caseload update - How is the AAT tracking?

The AAT is continuously measuring our performance in order to ensure we are meeting our objectives.

For a simple overview of the Tribunal’s caseload performance in the first half of the 2017-18 financial year, including the amount of lodgements, finalisations and trends, please click below.

These summaries are prepared by AAT staff to provide insight into our processes, the types of decisions we make and why the decisions are made. For the complete facts and reasons, please view the full written decisions on Austlii.

General Division

Duar Te Do Pateo Fernandes and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 348

The applicant’s visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as he did not pass the 'character test' due to his substantial criminal record. The Tribunal set aside the decision and substituted that the decision to cancel the visa be revoked.

Garnett and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 160

The applicant sustained a workplace injury while employed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as a result of repetitive computer and telephone work and Comcare determined that the applicant had no present entitlement to compensation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside the decision.

Joneidi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 176

The applicant was rejected a claim for the disability support pension by the Department of Human Services (Centrelink). The conditions set out in his claim include depression, bilateral knees osteoarthritis, lower back pain, benign prostatic hypertrophy and obstructive sleep apnoea. On second review, the Tribunal found these impairments were not rated at 20 points under the Impairment Tables and affirmed the decision.

Owoeye and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 117

The applicant’s citizenship application was refused due to a finding he failed to satisfy the residence requirement after extended absences overseas. The applicant was employed by an Australian University and submitted his absences were due to his work. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.

Uluikavoro Qoro and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 72

The applicant’s visa was cancelled due to a finding he did not pass the ‘character test’. This decision was based on the finding that he had a 'substantial criminal record' after several driving offences, assault convictions and two public order convictions. The Tribunal substituted the decision exercising the discretion not to cancel the visa.

Migration & Refugee Division

1419288 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 282

An application made by a family of three for Protection visas was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant seeking protection claimed he was at risk of torture if returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal remitted the decision with the direction that the applicant satisfied section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.

1620536 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 296

The applicant was refused a Protection visa by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as she was found not to face a real chance of serious harm in Malaysia. The applicant's reasons for her claim of protection were fear of her husband and the future of her child. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

Dalla (Migration) [2018] AATA 128

The applicant’s visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection after he provided incorrect information on a passenger card, prohibited by the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal affirmed this decision.

Huang (Migration) [2017] AATA 263

The applicant’s Prospective Marriage (Temporary) visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The sponsor had successfully sponsored three previous partners for similar visas. The Migration Regulations 1994 sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in a lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsor of no less than five years. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

Manash (Migration) [2018] AATA 180

The review applicant sought two Orphan Relative visas for his younger siblings on the basis that their only existing carer, their mother, was incapacitated and could not care for them. The applications were refused by a delegate under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration with the direction they met the criteria for the visas.

Social Services & Child Support Division

Billing and Tillick (Child support) [2018] AATA 220

A decision was made by the Department of Human Services not to change the care percentages in a child support assessment after it was alleged the pattern of care of a child had changed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

Dune and Simmons (Child support) [2018] AATA 335

A decision was made by an objections officer of the Department of Human Services – Child Support terminating the child support of the liable parent. The matter concerned the care percentages of the parents and whether a terminating event occurred. The Tribunal found that a terminating event did not occur and set aside the decision, substituting amended care percentages for a certain period.

Taxation & Commercial Division

Nguyen and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation [2018] AATA 117

The Commissioner of Taxation issued amended tax assessments to the applicant and also imposed administrative penalties on the basis that the applicant made false statements in her assessments which suggested a reckless disregard for the law. The Tribunal was not persuaded the applicant had demonstrated the commissioner’s assessments were excessive and affirmed the decision.

The AAT Bulletin is a weekly publication containing information about recently published decisions and appeals against decisions in the AAT’s General, Freedom of Information, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Security, Taxation & Commercial and Veterans’ Appeals Divisions.

The Bulletin also regularly includes a sample of decisions recently published in the AAT’s Migration & Refugee Division and Social Services & Child Support Division.

Subscribe

What do you think?

Write to us at Communications@aat.gov.au to provide editorial suggestions and feedback.