[blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Steve Willner:

>>In practice, in relatively few cases is there doubt about the
>>appropriate law to apply.
>>(We on BLML see a high proportion of such cases.)

Ed Reppert:

>I do not believe that which law to apply is the only point of
>law contemplated by that particular provision of Law 93.

Richard Hills:

Yes, Ed seems to be correct in his argument that Steve is too
narrowly construing the Law 93B3 limitations on the powers of
an Appeals Committee.

WBF Code of Practice, pages 4-5:

"Appeals of questions of law or regulation are heard by the
Chief Director; a further appeal against his decision may be
made thereafter to an Appeal Committee which has no power to
overturn the Chief Director's decision but may recommend to
him that he reconsider."

EBU White Book, clause 93.7:

"Suppose a TD rules that Law 25B may be applied despite LHO
having already called: that is a point of Law so even though
the Director is wrong the Committee may not over-rule him.
They are allowed to be forceful when explaining this to him!

But if he had allowed Law 25B because he believes the attempt
to change was before LHO called, but the Committee decided it
was after LHO called then they may over-rule him because that
is a matter of fact."

Richard Hills:

In the regional case 11 in question, the facts were agreed, but
the Director had misinterpreted Law 68A.  Since the appeals
panel was not discovering any new facts, it lacked the power to
vary the Director's ruling.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285