In concluding that no reasonable tribunal would have refused the adjournment request the primary judge found, the Tribunal’s decision that the Applicant should not be able to submit test results corrected following a re-mark “lacked an evident and intelligible justification”.

The Federal Courts have held that the Tribunals refusal to grant a short adjournment was unreasonable and stressed that it is critical that Tribunals act reasonably when reviewing cases.

The decision came in a case where the applicant requested from the Tribunal an adjournment to seek a review and re-mark of the applicant’s IELTs score. The applicant who failed several times to achieve the English proficiency standard for a sc485 application was also at the same time scheduled to sit several more IELTs tests.

However, the Tribunal decided to proceed to make its decision because it formed the view the applicant has had a reasonable period of time to obtain evidence of competent English – he made his visa application in June 2010 and had sat the IELTS test several times.

The Federal Court however referred to the High Court’s decision in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 297 ALR 225; [2013] HCA 18 (Li) and noted that there is a presumption of law that Parliament intends an exercise of power to be reasonable.

The review of student visa refusals takes up most of the MRTs time and has reportedly been the source of caseload backlogs in the recent past. The reported surge in student visa applications must surely now be a source of concern.

The MRT is established under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to review DIBP decisions and make the correct or preferable decision. The MRT is required to be ‘fair, just, economical, informal and quick’ (ss. 353(1).

Recent statistics from the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) indicate that the MRT is generally taking less time for a decision as it edges closer to the time standards it has set for decisions. For refusals review, the MRT decided matters within 398 days on average, which is just under 2 months from the target time standard. Cancellation reviews however took twice the time standard of 150 days.

A spike in the permanent residence grants for cooks and hairdressers has had the media reporting that skilled migration policy has lost its way.

Cooks have topped the skilled migration list. Over 8000 cooks got permanent visas in 2012-13, followed by 5700 accountants, 2160 software engineers, 1550 IT business analysts and 1500 hairdressers, reports the Herald Sun.

The Herald Sun report also noted that skilled migration is dominated by Indians and Chinese, who comprised about half of the 129,000 places approved last year.

It is suggested that the students, who were caught out by changes to the skilled migration rules, have been ‘unwisely told’ that they could continue to apply for residency.

In an interview with the Herald Sun, Monash University migration researcher Dr Bob Birrel claimed that the number of highly skilled applicants wishing to enter the country is now falling, causing immigration officials to fill their quotas with ‘warehoused applicants’.

Australian consumer watchdog has turned its sights on fake online reviews which it says is misleading consumers and has issued a fine of $6600 to at least one business.

The ACCC has stepped up its investigations on fake online reviews, saying that it is a breach of the Australian Consumer Code to post false testimonials and reviews.

People rely on claims by websites in their decision-making and thus the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is becoming increasingly concerned they may be misled by fake reviews, chairman Rod Sims told Fairfax Media.

''Our concern is that people trust online websites more than they do company advertising or more than they do reading the newspaper. And yet if those things are not reliable … then that is both unfair to the consumer … and it is unfair to competitors.'' said Mr Sims.

It has been reported that in 2011, removalist company Citymove Pty Ltd paid a $6600 infringement notice after it admitted it published false consumer testimonials.

Revelations that Pakistani Cricketer Fawad Ahmed was granted a permanent visa despite DIBPs major concerns about his visa application is turning out to be a damning indictment of the ministerial intervention considerations.

Government briefing documents obtained by the ABC revealed that DIBP considered Ahmed’s case was ‘borderline” from the beginning and was worried it “may result in an adverse impact’ on other asylum seekers who apply through the normal channels.

It is reported that sources inside DIBP told the ABC that Ahmed received special treatment from both major political parties due to ongoing pressure from the cricket establishment.

Ahmed's claim for asylum was initially rejected by both the Immigration Department and Refugee Review Tribunal.