Now in the 8th year, Australia China BusinessWeek 2015 Sydney returns on August 5-6th, at the Four Seasons Hotel Sydney. The largest event across the Australia China BusinessWeek 2015 roadshow, over 1400 delegates attended ACBW Sydney in 2014 from both Australia & China.

Australia-China BusinessWeek 2015 Sydney is tailored towards China-active or early stage SMEs and mid-sized companies wanting to develop and refine their China strategy. Australia-China BusinessWeek offers an effective business platform for professionals and investors from Australia and China to connect, network and participate in business matching.

ACBW 2015 Sydney includes 9 high profile events: ACBW 2015 Sydney Breakfast & Keynote Luncheon, ACBW English Forum, Pathways To China Forum, Mandarin Forum, Investment Forum, SIV Forum, Showcase & Mix at Six Networking Function.

Bupa have launched a great campaign for new members running throughout July and August promoting health cover solutions for overseas visitors applying for a temporary working or holiday visa in Australia. The campaign also targets Australian expats highlighting Bupa’s unique position as Australia’s only healthcare provider offering solutions for inpats, expats and travellers. 

All of Bupa’s Working Overseas Visitors Cover product options include:

• Instant health insurance visa letter
• 100% Australian Government Visa compliant
• 100% ambulance cover by our recognised providers
• Access to public and private hospitals
• Repatriation cover
• Access to private doctors and specialists

If you would like more information on this campaign please contact your Bupa representative.

Higher education provider Navitas saw $100 million wiped from its shares listed on the stock exchange despite posting a strong increase in earnings. Investors sold-off of on warnings that  growth rates in the coming years may be slowing down due to several factors including the crackdown on student visa rorters.

Navitas has written off its Indian recruitment business Study Overseas and the Navitas Resources Institute in the second half of the year, according to a report in The Australian.

Other media reports indicate that a key factor for the write-down is tougher assessments of applicants from Nepal and India. Both universities and the department of immigration consider these countries high risk markets for visa rorts, said the group's chief executive Rod Jones.

"We initially had significant enrolments from countries like Nepal and India," Mr Jones told the AAP. "However, we made a deliberate decision four months ago to reduce those enrolments because we saw lot of the students were not genuine in that they were interested in migration rather than education."

He however said India, alongside China and Vietnam, continues to be one of its biggest markets.

Earlier, the Australian reported that there was increasing evidence that students were entering the country by enrolling in a government-approved university or college under the streamlined visa processing programme, and then jumping ship to a cheap private college to finish their qualification at a fraction of the cost while ­remaining eligible for post-study work rights.

Under what circumstances can the Administrative Appeals Tribunal refuse to consider information that comes out during cross-examination of a witness at a hearing involving the cancellation of a visa on character grounds?

This was the question that the High Court had to decide in the recent case of Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) HCA 2015 (6 May 2015).  In this case, the Court was called upon to determine how section 500(6H) of the Migration Act should be applied.  By its plain language, this section provides that the AAT “must not have regard to any information presented orally in support of the person’s case unless the information was set out in a written statement given to the Minister at least 2 business days before the Tribunal holds a hearing”.

The wording of this section of the Act may appear to be clear enough, but what if there is a “wrinkle”, or unexpected legal complexity?  For example, if the information in question is brought forward during the cross-examination of a witness that is being conducted by a representative of the Minister, or by the Tribunal itself, is the Tribunal still prevented from considering the information when deciding whether to uphold the cancellation of the visa?

A new decision of the Federal Circuit Court emphasizes how important it is for RMAs to confirm that their electronic communications with the Department have actually been received. The decision – Bui v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 1931 (17 July 2015) also illustrates why it is essential for RMAs to keep good records of their email correspondence with the Department (among other things, the Department might claim that it “never got the email” or might fail to take note of a notification of a change in the RMA’s  email address, which could result in issues with timely notification of a decision on a visa application – as discussed in this article!!). 

The background of the Bui case was that the visa applicant had engaged a migration agent to assist her with an application for a Temporary Business Entry visa application.  The application form that was submitted to the Department confirmed (in November 2013) that the migration agent had been appointed, and provided the agent’s “then-current” email address for receiving communications from the Department.  Several months after the application was lodged (in mid-June 2014), the agent sent a letter to the Department by email, which was accompanied by a “Form 956”. Both this letter and the 956 Form stated that the agent’s email address had changed.  However, this email apparently did not reach the Department (or at least the Department so claimed when the case came before the MRT!!!).

Shortly after the migration agent had attempted to notify the Department of the change in his email address (in late June 2014), a Departmental officer refused the client’s visa application.  Notification of the refusal was sent by email and by post to the address that was given on the original application form (and not to the new email address that had been provided by the agent). This email did not come to the agent’s attention because the address that had been provided on the application form was no longer “active” (it was described in the Court’s judgment as being “defunct” at the time that the visa application was refused).  Consequently, the allowable period for seeking review of the refusal of the visa before the MRT expired without an application for review being made.