Australian Immigration Daily News

It is very common for visa applicants who have had their applications refused by the Department, and who have also lost their applications for merits review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to “appeal” (put most accurately, “to seek judicial review”) in the Federal Circuit Court, and to do so without the assistance of a lawyer.

In fact, when you read the decisions from the FCC on the Austlii Website, it is apparent that the majority of the applicants seeking judicial review are self-represented. 

One can only guess at the reasons why so many people choose to act for themselves before the Federal Circuit Court, but it is safe to assume that one of the main reasons is that applicants are concerned that they may not be able to afford the cost of getting legal assistance.

Is there any way to escape from the plague, pestilence and epidemic of “credibility issues” before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

Doesn’t it seem that in so many cases the Tribunal is searching for the dreaded “inconsistencies” in a visa applicant’s account of events, and then seizing on the inconsistencies however small or minor to find that the applicant is not believable, or a “witness of truth” as a significant part of the reason for affirming a decision of the Department? 

Is there any way to get around these credibility issues, and to rescue an applicant’s case? 

Will being charged with a drugs offence spell disaster for a citizenship application?

What if the applicant does not disclose on the citizenship application that she/he has been charged with an offence?

What if the applicant does not acknowledge responsibility for the offence in correspondence with the Department?

Is there any way to challenge successfully a decision of a delegate to refuse to grant a waiver of the infamous “no further stay” condition, Condition 8503, that is commonly attached to “visitor visas”?

That question was presented once again in a case that was decided last week by Judge Siopsis of the Federal Court, Karan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 872 (2 August 2017).

As readers will be aware, a decision of a delegate to refuse a waiver of Condition 8503 is not subject to merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 

Is there any way to salvage a partner visa application that has been “knocked back” by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

Suppose, for example, that the Tribunal has made a finding that it was not satisfied that based on “inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence” it was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, that any commitment was genuine and continuing, or that they lived together or that did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis? 

Is that necessarily the end of the story?