Australian Immigration Daily News

The case that is the subject of today’s article has immediate practical importance for anyone who ever handles, or might in the future assist a client, with an application for a Subclass 485 “Temporary
Graduate”  visa. 

The name of the case is Nguyen v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2016) FCCA 1523. It is a decision of Justice Burchardt and was handed down on 8 July 2016 and appeared on Austlii yesterday, 12 July. 

The question in the case was: “How should clause 485.223 of Part 485 of the Regulations be interpreted?” 

Ok everyone, it’s quiz time again! 

Who knows what PIC 4004 requires? 

No cheating is allowed, and no peeking onto Legend! 

It seems like one of the “hot topics” in migration law is establishing that the position for which a 457 visa applicant has been nominated is “genuine”. 

And it seems like the reason that this requirement has been so controversial is because it allows scope for a huge amount of subjective judgment on the part of a case officer, or, for that matter, the Tribunal, to determine what is genuine, and what is not. 

Is this one of those situations where the answer to the question of whether a position is genuine is: “I’ll know it when I see it?”  

Is it risky to rely on facsimile transmissions as a means of communicating with the AAT? 

You better believe it is! 

Or as my good friend from America, Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate and reality TV star, would put it emphatically: “You betcha!!!” 

Is the character test always fatal to a visa application? 

For example, suppose that you have a client who has a “substantial criminal record” within the meaning of section 501(6) of the Migration Act, as a result of having been convicted of an offence and having been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months, with the sentence suspended for 2 years? 

What if the offence was described as “assault occasioning bodily harm”?