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.

It is a common requirement for many classes of Australian visas that the applicant demonstrate a satisfactory level of proficiency in the English language. This is particularly true in the case of applications involving the skilled migration program.  Indeed, it stands to reason that there would be an expectation that persons seeking to take up skilled employment in Australia would have sufficient English language skills to function effectively in the workplace, and that the substantive requirements of the migration legislation would reflect and embody this expectation.

The evidence that is most usually relied on by visa applicants to demonstrate that they have the required level of ability in English is the “IELTS” (International English Language Testing System) test.

This test is widely administered both in Australia and overseas. The test assesses the English language skills of visa applicants against four “bands”, listening, reading, writing and speaking.  Applicants who undertake the IELTS test are provided with a “test report form” which can be submitted to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection as evidence of their ability in English. 

The Fair Work Ombudsman has kicked off a National Compliance Monitoring Campaign and will target about 1200 businesses found to have underpaid their workers over the past three years.

Employers who have previously short-changed their staff $500 or more will be audited this year to ensure they have not ignored advice and assistance given to them by Fair Work inspectors in response to their past contraventions, according to a statement from the ombudsman Natalie James.

“We obviously frown on those who refuse to fix problems or continually flout their workplace obligations so they have a competitive advantage over others doing the right thing,” said Ms James.

Maximum penalties for contraventions of workplace laws are $51,000 per breach for a company and $10,200 for an individual. Business sponsors of foreign workers also face the risk of losing their sponsorship rights.

Ms James says the campaign aims to assess the level of behavioural change among employers to assist the Agency understand the drivers of non-compliance and to help inform future pro-active compliance and education activities.

Recently, cleaning contractors came under the spotlight after spot checks resulted in wage recoupments of almost $763,000 for some 1200 workers who were mainly overseas born or on student visas. Latest data indicates there are almost 25,000 businesses operating in the cleaning services industry in Australia employing almost 100,000 workers.