Australian Immigration Daily News

Is section 501(3)(A) of the Migration Act unconstitutional? 

Recall: this section of the Act makes if mandatory for the Minister to cancel the visa of a person who 1) does not pass the character test by reason of having a “substantial criminal record”, as defined under section 501(a); or 2) has committed sexually based offences involving a child; and the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full time basis, in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory. 

Is this section of the Act unconstitutional because it imposes an additional “punishment” on the visa holder, and therefore infringes against Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests exclusive power on the judiciary to impose punishment on persons as the result of criminal conduct

On 7 February 2018, Queensland Senator Pauline Hanson of the One Nation Party introduced a bill into the Senate which proposes changes to the Australian Citizenship Act that are even more draconian than the amendments that were supported in 2017 by the Turnbull Government - which ultimately did not secure passage.

The bill sponsored by Senator Hanson is entitled the "Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Commitment for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill".

The principal features of the legislation are:

It seems that Legal Training Australia LTA) is still the least expensive CPD in the migration advice profession for all CPD types.

Here are the price points for some of the main CPD providers in the profession:

Practice Ready Program

Is there anything that you can do to challenge the opinion of an independent expert concerning whether an applicant for a partner visa has suffered family violence? 

Or does regulation 1.23(10), which requires that the Minister – that is either the Department or the Tribunal – to take the independent expert’s opinion to be correct the “end of the matter”? 

Does this regulation necessarily put a Tribunal decision that is predicated on an independent expert’s opinion that the applicant was not the victim of family violence beyond contest? 

What type of integrity checks are in place to assure that a visa applicant is actually the person who has taken an IELTS test? 

What kind of evidence might the Department or the Tribunal rely upon to determine that an IELTS test result report that is submitted is a “bogus document” and thus trigger the application of Public Interest Criterion 4020 to result in the refusal of the visa application? 

Or to put it another way, how can a person who is attempting to carry out a fraud, by using an “imposter” to take elements of the English language proficiency test for her/him, get “tripped up” so that the fraud comes to light?