Australian Immigration Daily News

Who is a dependent child for the purposes of Regulation 1.03?

Easy question, hard question, or question you would prefer not to think about?

Well, it was the determinative question in a case that was decided by the Federal Circuit Court on 1 August 2017, Sadat v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1748.

Sometimes when you read a news article you simply cannot believe your eyes!

Or you experience your eyeballs dropping out of your head in utter amazement and disbelief.

That was my reaction when I came across this article in today's Sydney Morning Herald which reports that the Department has adopted a policy that requires asylum seekers who are receiving taxpayer support to obtain the Department's approval before purchasing a household pet such as a dog or cat (the article indicates that there is no word as to whether the policy covers goldfish, guinea pigs or birds).

What makes a nomination of an occupation for a 457 visa “genuine”, such that the nomination satisfies subclause 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations and the nomination can be approved?

Does it matter whether the duties of the occupation will be performed on a full-time basis by the visa holder?

These questions were addressed in a decision of the Federal Circuit Court that was handed down earlier this week, Nguyen and Nguyen trading as Saigon Butchery v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 2155 (18 October 2017).

Does the Minister have an obligation to consider whether a visa holder is owed nonrefoulement obligations when deciding whether to cancel a visa?

Or is it “good enough” (sufficient to protect the visa cancellation decision against challenge) for the Minister simply to find that since it is open to the visa holder to apply for a Protection visa, there is no need to determine whether nonrefoulement obligations are owed?

This was the central issue in a case that was recently decided by Justice White of the Federal Court, Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No. 2) (2017) FCA 1218 (13 October 2017).

What type of evidence will support a waiver of Public Interest Criterion 4020?

Suppose a client has given the Department either a “bogus document” or information that is false or misleading in a material particular – how do you go about demonstrating that there are “compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen” that justify the granting of the visa in question?

In other words, how do you overcome the dreaded obstacle of PIC 4020?