Australian Immigration Daily News

When does an applicant for a visa that requires “competent English” have to take an IELTS test? 

The wording of Regulation 1.15C(1)(bb) says that the test must be “conducted in the 3 years immediately before the day on which the application was made”. 

Does this regulation mean what it “seems to say” – that the IELTS test must be taken “before” the application was lodged? 

There has been another decision from the Federal Circuit Court which will help to untangle the tangled web surrounding the question of when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the refusal of a 457 visa application.

Readers of this blog will recall my articles on the decisions of the Federal Circuit Court in the earlier cases of Minister for Immigration v Lee & Ors (2014) FCCA 2881 (10 December 2014) and Kandel v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 2013.

In the Lee case, Judge Nicholls held that the “MRT” (as it was then known) did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the refusal of a 457 visa because the applicant did not have an approved sponsorship at the time that the appeal was lodged, due to the fact that the sponsorship had “lapsed” (due to the operation of Regulation 2.75, which provides that an approval of a nomination for a 457 visa ceases 12 months after the day on which the nomination is approved.

 …..”the purpose of PIC 4020 (is) to render visa applicants ultimately responsible for the veracity of the information and documents supplied in support of the application….the Applicant is not absolved from responsibility because he left everything up to his agent”.

How often have we heard this type of pronouncement from the courts?

And how often have we seen fact patterns where visa applicants have “left everything” up to their agents, only to discover to their misfortune that, without the applicant’s knowledge, the agent has submitted  either a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, causing the application to “run afoul” of PIC 4020?

Issues relating to the cancellation of visas on character grounds are continuing to receive a great deal of attention both in the news media and in the courts.

Indeed, just last Friday there was a story in the Age about an Australian-born man who has two teen-aged children who appeared to have lost his Australian citizenship (under complicated circumstances described in the news article) and had received a notice from the Department of its intention to consider cancellation (an “NOICC”) of his Bridging Visa E.  The article reports that the NOICC refers to the visa holder’s having been jailed twice for theft and burglary.  The news story also states that the proceedings relating to the cancellation of this person’s visa are being “put on hold” by the Department while it undertakes an investigation to clarify the visa holder’s citizenship and immigration status.

And of course, a great deal of the news coverage concerning Prime Minister Turnbull's first visit to New Zealand focused on concerns raised by NZ Prime Minister John Key that a significant number of Kiwis who have spent most of their lives in Australia are facing deportation back to New Zealand, even in circumstances where it is claimed that the offences they have committed in Australia have been "relatively minor".  The news article that is linked in this paragraph indicated that PM Turnbull has made representations that the appeals of New Zealanders against the cancellation of their visa may be "fast-tracked".

Are you ready for another case involving the AAT and “office equipment”? 

OK then, here we go! 

Suppose you have filed an application for merits review of the refusal of a visa application, but you don’t actually receive a fax notifying you of a hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal then proceeds to determine the matter in your absence.