Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
Liana Allan is probably Australia's best known migration agent. Liana is the owner of Legal Training Australia Pty Ltd which is a professional development firm training Australian migration agents and owner of Visacorp Pty Ltd migration agency. Liana's main passion is serving the needs of the migration agent community and providing migrants with information that can truly assist them as they seek to create a new life in Australia. Liana plays netball twice a week and enjoys great food and the occasional glass of Shiraz. Liana lives in Sydney, Australia and has two children. Liana is married.
The following email has been received from NSW Treasury this afternoon:
NSW Treasury will begin accepting for NSW nomination for the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 491) on Monday 15 June 2020.
Announcement--NSW-nomination-for-Skilled-Work-Regional-visa-subclass-491.pdf
...
I am pleased to advise that I have been appointed as one of ten Australian experts in combating modern slavery and supply chain management to the Government’s Modern Slavery Expert Advisory Group (Expert Advisory Group).
The quote in the picture is one that I stand by.
For the Minister's press release please click here:
...
The Federal Court, through senior officers of the Court, became aware in late March 2020 that the names of some litigants who had commenced protection visa proceedings in the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court could be accessed on the Commonwealth Courts Portal through Federal Law Search. Those web-based services are managed under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.
The access that could be obtained to the names of some litigants was or could be, if obtained, publication contrary to the Migration Act s 91X. That provision provides that a federal court must not publish (in electronic form or otherwise) the name of a person in a proceeding relating either to their application for a protection visa or related bridging visa, or to the cancellation of such a visa. This state of affairs is referred to in these terms of reference as a ‘data breach’ or ‘the data breach’.
Source: S91X.pdf
| ERY19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 569 Federal Court of Australia Stewart J Migration law - applicant sought judicial review of Minister's 'personal decision', under s501(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), to refuse applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa - Minister was not satisfied applicant passed applicant 'character test' on basis of 'Interpol notice' concerning applicant - whether open to Minister 'to reasonably draw the inference that the applicant would present' risk to Australian community or segment of Australian community - whether misconstruction and misapplication of s501(6)(h) - whether Minister failed to consider information in Department's possession - whether Minister's decision 'legally unreasonable' - 'community expectation' - s195A Migration Act - 'legal unreasonableness' - held: Court not satisfied Minister could 'reasonably have inferred' from 'Interpol Red Notice' that applicant would present risk to Australian community or a segment of it - legal unreasonableness established - Minister's decision set aside. ERY19 |
| Kim v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 583 Federal Court of Australia Gleeson J Migration law - Minister's delegate declined to revoke cancellation of applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa - Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed delegate's decision - applicant sought judicial review - applicant contended Tribunal failed to take into account relevant consideration 'in addressing the extent of impediments' if he 'were removed' - Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Buadromo [2012] FCAFC 101 - held: Tribunal erred by failure to consider impact of health of applicant 'as required by' cl 14.5(1)(a) Direction No. 79 - jurisdictional error established - judicial review application upheld - matter remitted. Kim |
| CBI18 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 1018 Federal Circuit Court of Australia Judge Heffernan Migration law - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed refusal to grant applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) (Subclass 790) Visa - applicant sought judicial review - whether Authority failed to consider 'relevant material' - ss473CB(1)(b), 473CC & 473DD(b) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - held: Authority failed to consider relevant material consisting of letter which was provided by wife of applicant - letter was 'highly material' to applicant's claims - constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction established - jurisdictional error established - orders made for issuing of writs in nature of certiorari and mandamus. CBI18 |
| FJV18 v Minister For Home Affairs & Anor [2020] FCCA 1032 Federal Circuit Court of Australia Judge Young Migration law - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed decision of Minister's delegate to refuse to grant applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa - Authority not satisfied, for purpose of s5J(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), there was 'real chance of persecution which relates to all areas of Pakistan' - Authority concluded applicant would not face real chance of persecution if 'relocated to Islamabad' - 'reasonableness of relocation' - question of relocation's reasonableness arising in relation to consideration of complementary protection, not the assessment of whether person is a refugee - CS17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 68 - s36(2B)(a) Migration Act - 'level of generality' of Authority's approach to relocation question - held: Authority did not discharge statutory task to examine material and to make findings concerning whether applicant and family, 'could as a matter of practical reality', relocate to Islamabad - jurisdictional error established - writs of certiorari and mandamus issued. FJV18 |
Source: https://benchmarkinc.com.au/web/
A fast track decision is one where the Department of Home Affairs refused the application because of a discrete criterion that does not require a subjective assessment, and evidence has now been given to the Tribunal that unequivocally satisfies the objective criterion in dispute. For example, if a visa application was refused only because suitable evidence of an English test result was not given to the delegate, and evidence of that suitable test result is now given to the Tribunal, a fast track decision may be possible.
A fast track decision cannot be made where a subjective assessment of criteria is required (eg. genuineness); or where the Tribunal must consider all relevant criteria in order to reach a favourable decision (eg. Employer nomination/sponsorship).
A high number of unsuitable requests for fast track decisions slow down this important process and reduce the overall efficiency of Tribunal operations, particularly during this difficult time. Requests that cannot be fast-tracked as I have described above will receive a short statement to this effect and the application will be dealt with according to its order of lodgement without further consideration.
...
Login / Join
