Australian Immigration Daily News

Can the manner in which the Australian government wields the power of visa cancellation be fairly described as being harsh, cruel, disproportionate, unforgiving and indeed mindless?

You be the judge after you consider a case that was decided late last week by Justice Markovic of the Federal Court, Kemp v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCA 1109 (27 July 2018).

Perhaps at first blush you might consider that this visa holder, a New Zealand citizen in Australia as the holder of a Special Category Subclass 444 visa, “deserved” to have his visa cancelled.

 How much time do you have to respond to a “section 359A” letter from the Administrative  Appeals Tribunal?

Recall that section 359A of the Migration Act  requires the Tribunal to give a visa applicant clear particulars of any information that it considers would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the refusal of a visa application and to invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information.

Recall further that section 359C provides that if an applicant is invited to comment on or respond to information under section 359A and does not do so within the time given to do so, then the Tribunal may proceed to make a decision on the review.

Is it important to check whether the Department’s Provider Registration and Internal Monitoring System – “PRISMS” – has accurate, up-to-date information concerning the enrolment status of the holder of a student visa?

A recent decision from the Federal Circuit Court, Zhang v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2018) FCCA 1946 (24 July 2018) gives the answer: You better believe it is incredibly important!

In fact, as the case illustrates, proving that the correct information concerning a student’s enrollment can be absolutely vital to overturning a decision by the Department or the Tribunal to cancel a student visa.

Is the saying "you get what you pay for" true when it comes to the quality of CPD for RMAs?

In other words, is there a correlation between what you pay for a CPD course, and how good the content of the course is?

At the recent hearing of the Australian Parliament's  Joint Standing Committee on Migration concerning the current regulation of migration agents, testimony was given by a representative of the Migration Institute of Australia (Bronwyn Markey) raising concerns about a "race to the bottom" on the pricing of CPD costs that is said to have occurred since the OMARA removed its requirement to review and approve course content and replaced it only with a requirement that the CPD provider be approved (in other words, once approved, a CPD provider can prepare CPD course contents without any oversight or review by the OMARA).

Suppose you have a client who does not satisfy the character test because she/he has a substantial criminal record.

Suppose also that it has been determined by the Tribunal that the client is owed non-refoulement obligations on complementary protection grounds.

In these circumstances, if the Minister exercises powers under section 501A(2) of the Migration Act to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and refuses to grant a protection visa, is there any legal theory available to challenge the Minister’s actions?