When exactly do things like Skills Assessment and English Language proficiency test documents get checked by the department of immigration? The answer apparently seems to be well and truly after the visa has been granted.

In a matter recently considered by the AATA, the Tribunal found that the DIBP granted the applicant a skilled visa purely based on information provided by the applicant at the time of application. There were no checks made by the DIBP with the Skills Assessment authorities or the relevant language testing centre prior to the DIBPs decision to grant the visa.

However, a year after the application and well after the grant of the visa, "CPA Australia advised the Department that in their database they had no record of the applicant’s skills assessment, that they had no record of the reference number provided by the applicant, and no record of the applicant’s name” according to the Tribunal member's statement.

The Department, then undertook checks with the IELTS Report Form Verification Service which showed that there was no record of the applicant undertaking an IELTS English test - the Verification Service was unable to locate any record of the reference number the applicant provided and there was no record of the applicant’s name in their database.

DIBP subsequently cancelled the visa. The applicant applied for a review denying any wrong-doing and pointed to corruption within the DIBP and fraud by “a migration agent whom he paid a fee of $70,000…”.

Is there any way to challenge an unfavourable decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

This is a question that RMAs must often consider. It is a common occurrence that an application for merits review will not be successful before the Tribunal. And it may seem, both to the client and to the RMA who is assisting the client, that the Tribunal’s decision has been unfair or has incorrectly arrived at the “wrong” result. 

This may be especially true in cases where one of the criteria for the grant of the visa is to establish that the applicant would be a “genuine temporary entrant” to Australia – for instance, visitors and student visas. The RMA may believe, based on discussions with the client, that it is indeed the client’s true and sincerely held intention only to stay in Australia for a short period of time and then to return to her/his home country.  But the Department and the Tribunal may come to a completely different conclusion. The visa application may be refused in the first instance by the Department, and the refusal may be affirmed by the Tribunal. 

Higher wages, shorter work hours, better work conditions, and an attractive alternative lifestyle are among the reasons doctors from the United Kingdom are considering a move to Australia over other countries after UK Health Secretary imposed tough new contracts on junior doctors that would have them work longer hours for less money in UK hospitals.

A day after the UK Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt confirmed the tougher contracts, some 3,468 requests for a certificate to practise medicine outside of the UK were made to the UK’s NHS - the regulator normally gets between 20 and 25 requests a day, notes are report in The Guardian.

Depending on their seniority, doctors can earn up to 50% more in Sydney or Melbourne, despite generally working less overtime. The UK provided Australia with 13% of its GPs and 22% of its specialists in 2011. The crisis in the UK could see these numbers rise.

Associate professor Brian Owler, who is head of the Australian Medical Association, who is critical of the NHS contract changes told The Guardian that junior doctors should be “highly valued” and indicated that Australia should welcome them all.

Expert Finance Group is able to provide your clients with easy finance options, this increases the amount of clients you are able to assist.

Register Here with Expert Finance Group

Why Expert Finance Group?

The MIA is running a survey for all joint Migration Alliance-MIA members regarding lawyer RMAs and the MIA Rules following the Kendall Review.

The survey is open to the public (not locked and no member login required).  If the MIA doesn't permit lawyers (who are not RMAs) to be members of the MIA then the MIA will lose revenue from membership fees.  Therefore, it is likely that the MIA may seek to change their rules to ensure the MIA has no drop in income.  The email to our joint members reads as follows:

"The Kendall Review of the OMARA recommended that lawyers be removed from the regulatory system and not be permitted to be registered migration agents.