Australian Immigration Daily News

Is there any way to challenge successfully a decision of a delegate to refuse to grant a waiver of the infamous “no further stay” condition, Condition 8503, that is commonly attached to “visitor visas”?

That question was presented once again in a case that was decided last week by Judge Siopsis of the Federal Court, Karan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 872 (2 August 2017).

As readers will be aware, a decision of a delegate to refuse a waiver of Condition 8503 is not subject to merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 

Is there any way to salvage a partner visa application that has been “knocked back” by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

Suppose, for example, that the Tribunal has made a finding that it was not satisfied that based on “inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence” it was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, that any commitment was genuine and continuing, or that they lived together or that did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis? 

Is that necessarily the end of the story? 

We have revised our commission rates to ensure that you will receive the most competitive rates in the market as well as providing quality service.

In yesterday’s post, we saw, in the discussion of the Full Court’s decision in the Carrascalao case, an illustration of possible avenues to challenge decision-making by the Minister (for example, where the Minister exercises personal powers to cancel a visa on character grounds).

Namely, where it can be shown that the Minister (or another decision-maker) clearly has not had sufficient time to review the background materials relevant to a decision, then it may well be open to challenge or contest that decision on the theory that there was not been “genuine, proper and realistic” consideration of the merits.

Sorry to say, but today we’re back to the “old normal”: another decision of the Federal Court that shows that challenging a visa cancellation decision will most commonly be very difficult, and that attempts to raise creative and novel grounds of fighting visa cancellations will not easily be accepted by the courts.

Does “haste make waste”?

That’s one of the most famous sayings of Benjamin Franklin (one of the leading intellectuals of colonial America!).

A recent decision of the Full Court, Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCAFC 107 (24 July 2017) gives an answer to this question, at least in the context of decisions made personally by the Minister to cancel visas on character grounds.