The department of immigration will charge 50 per cent more for partner visa application fees from next year, according to a recent media release by DIBP.

A check on the charges using DIBPs online visa charge calculator however shows that it has yet to be updated with the new few structure therefore potentially misleading applicants who are intending to lodge their applications next year.

The new charges will apply to several partner visa categories namely Partner visa subclasses (combined 309/100 and 820/801) and the prospective marriage visa (subclass 300).

DIBP has not stated why it has targeted Partner visas for such a massive price increase and simply notes that it is required “to fund whole-of-government policy priorities.” The fee increases are expect to raise revenues by $373.6 million over four years.

The price rise will come into force from January 1, 2015.

Our heartfelt condolences to the victims of the Sydney siege.

The Migration Alliance wishes to express our sincere condolences to the families of the victims of the Sydney siege. We are shocked and saddened by the incident which we like most people in this peaceful country are still trying to comprehend and come to terms with.

Our thoughts are with the families of the Sydney barrister and mother-of-three Katrina Dawson; and Lindt Café Manager, Tori Johnson who were tragically killed in the incident.

The ‘offshore ID’ scheme has had one website, www.dreamvisas.com boast of a special relationship with DIBP on the basis that, “the Australian migration department has given him [an] offshore agent id”. A Migration Agents Registration Number (MARN) is nowhere to be seen on the website and the only advertised name, Manoj Palwe is not listed on the Migration Agent’s Registration Authority register of agents. This entity is not only providing migration advice without any liability under the Code of Conduct for RMAs but is also offering to franchise its operation. DIBP's scheme certainly allows for the spawning of a web of unregistered practitioners over whom it has no controls.

Another website, www.vmakevisas.com prominently displays the MARN logo and claims to have RMAs. However it names no individual consultant nor does it display any MARN number as required under the Code of Conduct for RMAs. The company name draws a blank when searched on the MARA register of RMAs. Perhaps MARA could take this blog post as a complaint, and comment on the matter. Given that copyright conventions are international, the issue of jurisdiction should not stop MARA from at least issuing a ‘takedown notice’ to this website owner (and any others for that matter) to stop them from using the MARA name and logo.

There are no two ways about this issue. DIBP and MARA need to send out a clear message on this: the authorities will not tolerate unregistered practitioners. It undermines the whole registration regime which in essence aims to protect unwary visa applicants from dealing with practitioners not obliged to abide by the Code of Conduct for Registered Migration Agents.

Unfortunately, DIBP not only sends out mixed signals by encouraging unregistered practice, it also maintains an antagonistic approach in its publicity material about RMAs. In a recent post on DIBPs migrationblog.immi.gov.au, DIBP has posted an article “How the department engages with your registered migration agent’ where it diminished the role of RMAs in the application process making RMAs sound like inconvenient post-boxes.

The photograph above is courtesy of the businessinsider.com.au website:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/reports-hostages-taken-by-armed-man-at-sydneys-martin-place-2014-12

Our building is in lockdown. 

The Guardian reports that it has obtained internal emails of the department of immigration revealing that DIBP delayed making a decision on an asylum seeker’s case waiting for the government’s new temporary protection visa laws come into force.

The emails were connected with an 84-year-old Iraqi refugee and her daughter who were both found to be refugees by the Refugee Review Tribunal and have completed their health and security checks, according to a report in The Guardian.

Under section 65A of the Migration Act, DIBP is required to make decision on a protection visa application within 90 days of an RRT decision. However, the report states that the women have been waiting for DIBPs decision for over 130 days since the RRT decision.

Among the leaked DIBP emails one noted, ““although she is grant ready for her visa the appropriate legislation has not been passed for the grant; it may take a few months and could be a TPV”

A second email stated,” The applicant arrived in Australia as an Unauthorised Air Arrival (UAA) and therefore, as part of the government’s strategy to place measures on illegal arrivals receiving a permanent visa, the case is on hold until legislation and new reforms are possibly introduced later this month”