Australian Immigration Daily News

Do you think it could cause a problem if a visa applicant does not disclose details of a significant change to her/his medical condition following visa grant?

Or is it the case that once a visa is granted, the applicant has no obligation to provide any further information to the Department, that they are, so to speak, "home free", and can come to Australia without consequence to their visa status?

Well, a recent decision of the Federal Court, in the case of Mitra v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) FCA 1590 (27 September 2019) illustrates that it can be exceptionally risky to "remain silent", and not to disclose a significant change in circumstances to the Department.

Have you been wondering about what has happened in The Tamil Refugee Case?

As you know, that is the very high profile case that has been unfolding in the Federal Courts, concerning the attempts of a Sri Lankan family of Tamil ethnicity to avoid removal from Australia. 

The family is composed of the parents, Priya and Nades, both of whom arrived in Australia by boat, and their two daughters, Kopika and Tharunicaa, who were both born in Australia.  They have lived in the community of Biloela in rural Queensland for a number of years, and have received vocal public support from members of that community for their efforts to avoid removal from Australia.

If you ever deal with or advise on Protection visas, you should be aware of a decision that was handed down by the Full Court yesterday, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CTW17 (2019) FCAFC 156 (5 September 2019).

The issue that was addressed in this case involved whether it is possible to make a valid application from onshore for a Protection visa if a previous application has been refused.

Readers may recall that in 2013, an earlier decision of the Full Court in SZGIZ had effectively opened the door for renewed applications made on complementary protection grounds even if a previous application made on "refugee" grounds had been refused.  

Have you been keeping the decision of the Full Court in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCAFC 32; 241 FCR 121 in mind in your day-to-day practice?

You will recall that this decision is one of the most important and consequential in recent years.

The decision changed the law concerning the “waiver” of Schedule 3 criteria in Partner Visa cases.

Sometimes when you are reading through the decisions of the Federal Courts, something will strike you as so unusual, or so incredible, that it will feel like a bucket of cold water has been poured over your head!

Exhibit A is a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in the case of CQX18 v Minister for home Affairs (2019) FCAFC 386 (21 August 2019).

This case involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority affirming the Department’s refusal of a Safe Haven Enterprise visa.