Australian Immigration Daily News

They say “timing in life is everything”. 

This time-worn saying certainly rings true in relation to migration law: it is so so important to sort out problems with the evidence at an early stage!

A recent case that came before the Federal Court, Faruque v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCA (9 November 2015) illustrates just how perilous it can be “not to get to the bottom of an issue” at the earliest possible time and to resolve any questions that the Department may ask concerning the accuracy or authenticity of documents that are submitted in support of a visa application. 

I think it is safe to say that there are many people who are greatly troubled by Australia’s current policies for dealing with so-called “illegal maritime arrivals”, or “asylum-seekers”.  

Is it really consistent with international humanitarian standards for Australia to hold people in what news reports have described as squalid, unsanitary and miserable conditions for years on end while their claims of refugee status are “processed”? I don’t think it is!!!! We are now in the midst of what has been called the greatest refugee crisis since World War 2, with 60 million people desparately seeking to escape wars and persecution. Yet we don’t see the governments in Europe putting people in detention!

Speaking purely for myself, there is something terribly wrong with this picture.  And as someone who is a migrant to Australia himself, and who comes from a family where ancestors were fortunate enough to escape from war and persecution, I have the greatest sympathy for refugees who find themselves in detention.

It can be really really hard to challenge a decision of the Minister to cancel a visa on character grounds, and to protect a client from getting “booted out” of Australia. 

As we have seen through the cases discussed on this blog over the course of the last several months, even people who have lived in Australia since early childhood, but for whatever reason, have not become Australian citizens, have lost their cases.  These people are facing “removal” – a euphemism for “deportation” back to countries where they may have never lived, and with which they may have no connection in terms of family ties or work history. See for example Brown v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 141 (24 September 2015)

That is the bitter reality, and the bitter consequence, of the visa cancellation powers that have been introduced into the Migration Act. 

Are their limits on the AAT’s power to refuse to grant an adjournment to allow additional information to be provided in support of a visa application?

And if there are limits to the AAT’s discretion, what are the limits?

So if the AAT refuses to grant an adjournment to allow further information to be submitted, and the AAT then affirms the refusal of the application, how do you know whether you have a case to take to the Federal Circuit Court?

There probably hasn’t been any “hotter topic” before the Federal courts this year than the cancellation of visas on character grounds. The issue has also gotten a lot of attention in the news media lately, especially in relation to the cancellation of visas (almost always, “Special Category” visas) held by New Zealand citizens.  

In view of the continuing high level of interest in this subject, it is timely to look at a fairly recent case that came before the Federal Court (23 June 2015) in which a New Zealand citizen unsuccessfully sought to have the cancellation of his visa overturned.  

The case was Rangiwai v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCA 621. The case is particularly noteworthy because it was one where the visa holder was able, in the first instance, to have a decision made by a delegate of the Minister set aside in the AAT, only to have that cancellation restored personally by the Minister on “national interest” grounds and then to have his application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision dismissed by the court.