Australian Immigration Daily News

Is there anything you can do if the Administrative Appeals Tribunal refuses to grant your client an adjournment which would make it possible to provide information which demonstrates that the client satisfies the criteria for the grant of a visa? 

What if the issue that is of concern to the Tribunal only comes up during the Tribunal’s hearing?

And what if the Tribunal refuses to grant an adjournment not because it is unsure that the applicant can supply the information which would satisfy the particular criterion for grant of the visa, but instead, the Tribunal refuses to grant the adjournment because it harbours “doubts” about whether the applicant satisfies a different, unrelated criterion?

Can the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rely on a Departmental policy (PAM3) that is more stringent than the regulations to affirm the refusal of an application?

What if the purpose of the policy is to prevent applicants from “subverting” the “purpose” of a regulation?

These issues came before the Federal Circuit Court in a case that was decided late last week, He v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 2915 (29 October 2015).

We’ve all heard the expression: “There is nothing new under the sun” (in case you are really curious, this expression comes from the Bible, specifically “Ecclesiastes”).

I would reckon that most RMAs would question from their work experience just how accurate that expression really is! I suggest that it would be the more typical experience of RMAs that the opposite is really true, that instead of there being nothing new under the sun, in reality there is almost always something new under the sun – practically every day!  And (if you can bring yourself) to read the case reports on Austlii, you will see that it is really true – different, unusual, surprising and one might go so far as to say “wacky” situations come up in the Federal courts all the time!

The case that is the subject of today’s article – Patel & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 28293 – involves an issue that I haven’t come across before:  Can the fraudulent conduct of the sponsor of a 457 visa holder result in the cancellation of the visa?  The answer to this question, provided by the Court in the Patel case is: “Yes it can!”

The case that is the subject of this article involves a “Business Skilled” (Residence) visa – Subclass 892. 

Before I present my analysis of this case – Snyman & Anor v Minister for Immigraiton & Anor (2015) FCCA 2791 (19 October 2015) – I would like to invite readers to discuss their experiences with this kind of visa in the “comments” section.  What has been your experience in dealing with this kind of visa?

What kinds of issues have been raised by the Department during the processing of the application? Have any of your applications for this visa been refused?  If so, on what grounds?  Have you been able to overcome a refusal through an application for merits review to the AAT, or through judicial review proceedings? 

A news story that appeared on last night's "SBS News" and that has been republished oinline today reported that there are "dodgy operators" who are offering to "sell" fake IELTS test certificates. The story indicated that the price that is being asked for the false test reports may range from $5,000 to as high as $12,000.

The story says that these fake certificates are being advertised on several websites.

It also quotes one unidentified migration agent as saying that the company that she works for "offers a middleman service for those willing to pay". This agent is also quoted in the story as saying: " If the client wants to work and migrate to Australia, we offer them the fake IELTS".