Facts:

1. The migration agent submits a 457 business nomination and is the authorised person.

2. The 457 business sponsorship is already approved and the migration agent is the authorised person.

Should a doctor who has been convicted of sexually abusing a 19 year old female patient while working in the public health service have his Australian visa cancelled on character grounds? 

That question was presented to the Full Court in the case of Durani v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) that was decided in July of last year.

One might hazard to guess that if such a criminal history – which, by the way, resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months – were viewed in isolation, apart from any other circumstance of the case - that there is literally no one who would not wholeheartedly agree that a person who has committed such an offence richly deserves to have his entitlement to remain in Australia cancelled. 

After being given the run around for several months to a request for DIBPs staff contact details under the FOI, the DIBP eventually refused the request of Melbourne Solicitor Maria Jockel who then had to turn to the office of the Information Commissioner for a review of the decision.

DIBP provided various excuses to Ms Jockel late last year on why they could not provide her with information relating to “the structure of the Department and various contact lists for particular sections within the Department, including the ‘top structure’ of senior management.”

“Ms Jockel particularly sought the Department’s Australian State and Global structure charts; and contact lists that identify the position names, title, telephone number and email addresses of relevant staff members.” According to the Information Commissioners decision.

The DIBP responses effectively told her to look it up online indicating that it would take too much time and effort and may potentially require them to consult with ‘several hundred employees’ before providing her with their personal information. Ironically, Ms Jockel had successfully obtained similar information under the FOI from the DIBP on previous occasions.

The Information Commissioner was not satisfied with DIBPs responses and found that the DIBP “has not discharged its onus under s 55D of the FOI Act of establishing that its decision is justified…” and ordered the DIBP to “process Ms Maria Jockel’s request, and notify her of its decision no later than 30 days…”

Dear Migration Alliance Member

Calling all Referral Partners CLICK HERE 

Migration Cover, the world’s first migration insurance for your skilled/457 clients, provides cover for: 

The DIBP have sent the following correspondence to a Migration Alliance member RMA after receiving an email from him on 29 October 2015 regarding the cessation of fingerprint services by the Australian Federal Police in Western Australia:

"The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) is aware the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has ceased providing fingerprinting services to the public. In Western Australia the Police have also withdrawn from providing fingerprinting services.    

While the Department understands that not all foreign embassies or consulates in Australia are able to provide this service to their citizens, the Department still requires a police clearance certificate if requested.