Australian Immigration Daily News

Back in April 2017, Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull announced that the 457 visa will be replaced with a new visa program to put ‘Australians first’. As you are aware of the recent changes from 1^st July, here at Labour Support Group, we aim to address this question that has been frequently asked by many migration agents and lawyers.

Question: Based on the new Occupation List, which are the more popular occupations with the highest success rate?

Answer: Each case is unique even if it is for the same position; a Motor Mechanic in an automotive workshop and a Motor Mechanic in a bakery can be of the same position but because of their environment, the supporting evidence will be very different. The success of the application is largely dependent on the supporting evidences that are submitted together. These evidences can include, but are not limited to:

Migration cases can have a wacky, winding, crazy, tortured history, can’t they?

Our colleague Rajinder Bassan has brought just such a case that he recently handled to our attention, Khurana (Migration) (2017) AATA 1031 (19 June 2017).

This was the history:

When does an officer of the Australian Border Force have legal authority to search someone’s mobile phone in immigration clearance?

That question was presented in a case that was recently considered by Judge Dowdy of the Federal Circuit Court in a recent case, DOZ16 v Minister for Immigration (2017) FCCA 1157 (6 June 2017).

These were the circumstances of the case:

There has been another decision from the Federal Circuit Court that illustrates yet again that there is a high hurdle that must be overcome to obtain a “waiver” of Schedule 3  requirements by applicants  for Partner visas.

And this high hurdle continues to exist notwithstanding the decision of the Full Court in the Waensila case in March 2016 that the circumstances that are to be reviewed to determine whether there are “compelling reasons” for the grant of a “waiver” are not limited to those that were in existence at the time that the application for the Partner visa was lodged, but encompass any circumstance that has become extant at any time prior to the time that the decision whether to grant the “waiver”  is made.

The case that demonstrates the difficulties facing those seeking a “waiver” was Sohi v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1450 (12 June 2017) (reported on Austlii on 29 June 2017).

Do considerations of lifestyle matter when it comes to assessing whether an applicant for a student visa satisfies the “genuine temporary entrant “ criterion?

For example, does it matter if a student has been living in Canberra, and commuting to Sydney once a week to attend classes?

This question was examined in a decision that was handed down on 30 June 2017 by Judge Smith of the Federal Circuit Court in Raza v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1272 (30 June 2017).