Australian Immigration Daily News

Imagine that you were asked to comment on the chances that a Registered Migration Agent could avoid disciplinary action  - in the form of cancellation of his registration  - in the following scenario:

The RMA has the following “track record”:

• Found by the AAT to have been a “key player” in an attempt to mislead the Trades Recognition Authority by providing a false work reference for a visa applicant;
• Disqualified from acting as a “law associate” of a legal practitioner or law practice by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by lying to a magistrate and a barrister by holding himself out to be a legal practitioner when in fact his application for admission as a legal practitioner had been rejected on the basis that he had failed to disclose that he had been charged for perjury and theft and had been convicted in the UK on counts of handling stolen goods, forgery and obtaining property by deception;
• Had his registration as a tax agent terminated by the Tax Practitioners Board on the basis that he had ceased to meet the requirement of being a “fit and proper person”;
• Has been permanently banned by ASIC from engaging in work as a finance broker after it was found that he had provided misleading information and had not made full disclosure on a credit licence application;
• Had submitted an application to the MARA for renewal of his registration as a migration agent which was false or misleading in a material particular because he had failed to disclose in his application for repeat registration that the Tax Practitioners Board had made a decision to terminate his registration as a tax agent; and
• Was found by the MARA to have engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct in his dealings with the MARA, the ASIC and the Tax Practitioners Board by representing himself to be a legal practitioner when he had not been admitted to practice as a lawyer.

Against such a background, would you “reckon” that this person’s “goose was cooked”?

Bill concerning changes to the Australian Citizenship Act has been released.   Below is a summary of the proposed changes which are currently debated at second reading in parliament.

Section 2A

Provides examples of where it is appropriate for the minister to revoke citizenship

Suppose you have a client who is seeking a 457 visa (yes it is still possible!)

Suppose also that the client was not able to satisfy the English language proficiency requirement of sub-regulation 457.223(4)(eb)(v),  which specifies that the applicant must have “achieved within the period specified by the Minister in (a) legislative instrument, in a single attempt at the test,  the score specified by the Minister in the instrument”.

(For readers having difficulty finding this sub-regulation, I will be happy to loan you my electron microscope for a small fee!!)

For people who could not make the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's (DIBP) 'hot issues' road show in Sydney on the 8 June, the topics covered were 457 visas and Citizenship.

The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority has provided the following presentations via its website:

457 PRESENTATION

Historically speaking, changes to Australian immigration requirements often results in increased number of refusals of applications.  There are reasons for increased refusals.  These reasons include stricter enforcement of regulations, increased scrutiny by case officers or unfair and harsh interpretation of the policy.

Where your application is refused, it is important to consider the next step in your immigration strategy.  It is also important to remember that time is something which is critical and each subsequent step needs will have consequences for your chances to remain in Australia. For example, it may be appropriate to re-submit the application and address areas of concerns raised at the original application.  However, there are instances where it is appropriate to appeal a decision.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – what you need to know: