Australian Immigration Daily News

By Liana Allan MARN 0104178

We are back to the old citizenship rules.

The bill which failed to be accepted, had tried to impose a university-level English language requirement plus four years of living in Australia as a permanent resident prior to an application being made for Australian citizenship.

Does the Minister have an obligation to consider whether a visa holder is owed nonrefoulement obligations when deciding whether to cancel a visa?

Or is it “good enough” (sufficient to protect the visa cancellation decision against challenge) for the Minister simply to find that since it is open to the visa holder to apply for a Protection visa, there is no need to determine whether nonrefoulement obligations are owed?

This was the central issue in a case that was recently decided by Justice White of the Federal Court, Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No. 2) (2017) FCA 1218 (13 October 2017).

What type of evidence will support a waiver of Public Interest Criterion 4020?

Suppose a client has given the Department either a “bogus document” or information that is false or misleading in a material particular – how do you go about demonstrating that there are “compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen” that justify the granting of the visa in question?

In other words, how do you overcome the dreaded obstacle of PIC 4020?

By Liana Allan

Yesterday's NZ immigration and investment seminar was a brilliant success.

For the 180+ Registered Migration Agents who attended the event at CQU in Sydney yesterday, me being one of them, we soon discovered how much more user-friendly the NZIS is compared to the DIBP.

Here is an interesting, unique and novel question:

Suppose the Department’s staff declines to refer a request for Ministerial Intervention to the Minister for consideration.

Is it possible to seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court to get that decision overturned, and thus to compel the Department to bring the case before the Minister?