Australian Immigration Daily News

Stories in the media over the weekend reported that the Turnbull Government has reached an agreement with the United States to resettle the approximately 1800 people who are currently being held at "off-shore processing centres" on Nauru and Manus Island to the United States.

The outlines of this agreement can be found, among other places, in this story in the Sydney Morning Herald.

According to the SMH article, the people who are being held on Manus Island and Nauru will be given the opportunity to go to the United States or to "repatriate". Otherwise, they will be given the option of a 20-year visa to remain on Nauru. 

It is often assumed that PIC 4020 is the “kiss of death” for a visa application.

And that if an applicant submits a “bogus document” in support of a visa application, that PIC 4020 will be “enlivened”, and that it will effectively be “game over” for the applicant.

And that in order to have any hope of getting PIC 4020 “waived” that one must put before the Department or the Tribunal strong evidence to show that either compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen justify the grant of the visa”.   And in the case of an application for a partner visa, the evidence in support of the request for a waiver of PIC 4020 must “go beyond” a demonstration that the relationship between the applicant and his sponsoring partner is genuine and continuing.

Suppose a bogus document is submitted to the Department in support of your client’s visa application?

Does that mean that the application is “dead and arrival” and that you client should start packing up and getting ready to go home?

Also: does section 366A(2), which provides that an “assistant” is not entitled to present arguments to, or address the Tribunal,  except in exceptional circumstances, mean that there is nothing useful that you can do for your client at a hearing?

Is there a good strategy for fighting the cancellation of a student visa?

Suppose  you have a client who has not maintained her/his enrollment in a registered course, and is therefore in breach of Condition 8202(2), which requires her/him to remain enrolled?

Will it “work” for the client to “scramble”, and get an offer of enrollment in a completely different course from the one on which the original student visa was premised?

Migration Alliance has received another report from a migration agent which suggests that the MARA has gone off the deep end yet again!!

Here’s the issue: Can a person provide “immigration assistance”, on a “free” or “pro bono” basis as a “private person” or “individual” without somehow being affiliated with a “business name”, and having a “business address” other than their home address?

You would think that this shouldn’t present the slightest issue in the world and that the answer to this question ought to be obvious as day, right?