Australian Immigration Daily News

LLLLLL  YYYYYYY

The following email is being received by RMAs in Queensland at the moment:

Dear AAAAAAA [name removed for privacy reasons]

The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the OMARA) is monitoring the conduct of registered migration agents to verify agents' compliance with the Code of Conduct.
 
The OMARA is authorised under section 316 (b) of the Act to “… monitor the conduct of registered migration agents in their provision of immigration assistance and of lawyers in their provision of immigration legal assistance” and section 316 (g) of the Act to “… monitor the adequacy of any Code of Conduct”.
 
The current focus of the OMARA is on agents that operate in Queensland.  You have been randomly selected for monitoring.  It would be appreciated if you would take the time to complete an online survey relating to your business practices and compliance with the Code of Conduct for registered migration agents.  The survey can be accessed by following the link below:
 
Follow this link to the Survey:
Take the Survey
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://dibpau.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=8G4utjXH8pVYHrf_2bm23MBNxEgwpJX&_=1
 
Please note that you may be selected for a monitoring visit in the near future.  Should this occur, the OMARA will be in contact with you to make appropriate arrangements for the visit.
 
Thank you for your cooperation.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
XXXX YYYYY
Assistant Director
Registration, Professional Development and Monitoring
Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority
Email: [name removed for privacy reasons]

Advice from Christopher Levingston, Accredited Specialist Immigration Lawyer is that absent a formal written request under section 308 or other statutory power there is no requirement for any RMA to comply with or take part in "random monitoring". 

A recent decision of the Migration Review Tribunal provides a powerful example of why it is so vital that non-citizens who wish to remain in Australia keep their visa status current at all times.

The case, 1410214 (2015) MRTA 181, involved an appeal against the Department’s refusal of a Partner Visa application (subclass 820).  The visa applicant had originally come to Australia from India in June 2007 on a student visa, which ceased in January 2008. The applicant then obtained a further student visa which ceased in June 2009. Although he was located by the Department in November 2011 and was given a bridging visa and an opportunity to apply for a further substantive visa by December 2011, he did not submit a further application until nearly two years later, in September 2013. At that time, while still on-shore in Australia, he sought a Partner Visa which was sponsored by his wife, who he had married in December 2011. The marriage took place prior to the deadline given to the applicant by the Department for lodging a further substantive visa. 

The obstacle that the applicant faced to his application was that he had failed to comply with the criteria of Schedule 3 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Furthermore, the applicant was not able to persuade the Department or the MRT that there were “compelling reasons” for not applying these criteria to his case.  The applicant’s failure to meet the Schedule 3 criteria, or to show that he was entitled to a waiver of the criteria, ultimately proved fatal to his on-shore Partner Visa application.

At least in theory, applications for “visitor visas” to Australia (subclass 600) should be relatively simple, straightforward and uncomplicated.  After all, it is well known that tourism is part of the “lifeblood” of the Australian economy.  However, it is far from the case that visitor visa applications are “routine”.

All too often, these applications are refused because the Department is not satisfied that the visa applicant meets the requirement, specified in clause 600.211 or Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations, of demonstrating that she or he “genuinely intends to stay in Australia (only) temporarily”. 

One of the difficulties with visitor visas is that, in most circumstances, the Department’s decisions to refuse an application cannot be challenged.  The right to seek review of the refusal of a visitor visa application is limited to a few narrow circumstances – primarily cases where the applicant is seeking a visa under the Sponsored Family Stream.  Thus, in circumstances where no review rights are available, the Department can, and does, seemingly arbitrarily, ignore evidence that would establish that the visa applicant is indeed a “genuine temporary entrant” (for example, evidence that the applicant has strong family, economic and social ties to their home country which would provide strong incentive for them to return at the conclusion of their planned visit). 

An email has been sent by DIBP's 457 policy section to Stakeholders re 457 training benchmarks:

Dear Stakeholder,

In response to recent allegations of misuse of funds contributed for the purpose of meeting the subclass 457 training benchmark requirements, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is conducting an audit of known training funds.