Are their limits on the AAT’s power to refuse to grant an adjournment to allow additional information to be provided in support of a visa application?

And if there are limits to the AAT’s discretion, what are the limits?

So if the AAT refuses to grant an adjournment to allow further information to be submitted, and the AAT then affirms the refusal of the application, how do you know whether you have a case to take to the Federal Circuit Court?

Dear Migration Alliance members,

Migration Alliance and Vodafone, have a unique offer for your clients arriving prior to December 31, 2015:

A Free $40 Combo 28 day pre-paid sim-card which includes:

In what has been described as the largest corruption scandal in the department of immigration, a Brisbane based case officer took over half a million dollars in bribes for granting visas to at least 59 foreigners.

Calls have now emerged for an overhaul of the visa approval process after the conviction of corrupt immigration officer, Filipino-born Alex Escala Allan, 52, from Doolandella, in Brisbane’s southwest.

Allan was sentenced in the District Court in Brisbane on Tuesday to eight months’ jail for secretly receiving $563,290 in bribes between May 2013 and April last year, according to a report in the Courier Mail.

Among those granted the visas include Allan’s son and girlfriend, both who are now awaiting deportation. DIBP has not made much headway in tracking the others.

Migration Alliance has been sent the following information.  We are aware that this relates to the Presidential candidate from the State of Victoria.  It is NOT Anka Sahin.

"The AEC has notified the MIA that they have received reports of candidates offering 'collection services' for ballot papers.

The AEC has provided the following information on this practice:

There probably hasn’t been any “hotter topic” before the Federal courts this year than the cancellation of visas on character grounds. The issue has also gotten a lot of attention in the news media lately, especially in relation to the cancellation of visas (almost always, “Special Category” visas) held by New Zealand citizens.  

In view of the continuing high level of interest in this subject, it is timely to look at a fairly recent case that came before the Federal Court (23 June 2015) in which a New Zealand citizen unsuccessfully sought to have the cancellation of his visa overturned.  

The case was Rangiwai v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCA 621. The case is particularly noteworthy because it was one where the visa holder was able, in the first instance, to have a decision made by a delegate of the Minister set aside in the AAT, only to have that cancellation restored personally by the Minister on “national interest” grounds and then to have his application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision dismissed by the court.