System Message:

Australian Immigration Daily News

Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Posted by on in Partner Visas

It is not difficult to imagine that there are many cases where a person has remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen after the expiration of a previous substantive visa (for example, a student visa), has developed a relationship (and perhaps started a family) and then wants to get a partner visa to be able to stay lawfully in Australia.  Of course, people who are in relationships will wish to avoid the period of separation that is associated with waiting for an “offshore” partner visa application to be assessed and determined – especially when the “processing times” for such applications can be very long (commonly exceeding a year). (I would suggest that all RMAs and their clients would agree that these processing times are unjustifiable, and that there is no reason on earth why an offshore partner visa application should take so long to be determined, but that is a matter for another day!). 

Given the desirability of applying for the partner visa while onshore rather than from offshore, it is natural to consider – and it can be anticipated that clients will ask: “Realistically, what are the prospects of successfully getting over the “hurdle” of Schedule 3? What kinds of “compelling reasons” could persuade the Department or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to “waive” the Schedule 3 criteria?

In a case that as examined last week, 1409924 (Migration) (2015) AATA 3088 (15 July 2015), we saw an example of a situation where the AAT determined not to grant a waiver from Schedule 3. In that case, the applicant and his sponsor had a child together who had a health condition that required special care. But because the child was born after the time that the application was lodged, and the AAT determined that the Schedule 3 criteria must be met at the time of the application (and thus not at the time of merits review before the AAT), it did not see fit to allow a waiver.

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 10938 4 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
2

Posted by on in Visiting Australia

One might think that because of the importance of the tourism industry to the Australian economy, and also because of the obvious social value in allowing Australian citizens and permanent residents to maintain their relationships with members of their immediate families, that getting a Visitor Visa would, in the ordinary course of things, be relatively simple and straightforward. Right? 

Well, one might not think so if one were working professionally as an RMA! Also right? Yep!!!!! 

As many of us know, the exercise of  trying to get a Visitor’s Visa approved by the Department can be truly frustrating, and can cause us to pull our hair (or in my case, what’s left of it!!) out in clumps!! Sometimes it seems that no matter how obvious it is that our client holds a genuine intention to stay in Australia only temporarily, and we can provide a mountain of evidence that the applicant has sufficient ties to her or his home country to give them strong incentive to return, the Department will not accept those facts, and will refuse the visa application. All too often it seems, the requirement of demonstrating that an applicant is really a “genuine temporary entrant” will rear its ugly head, and stand in the way of getting a visa for the client.

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 8149 9 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
1

Posted by on in Partner Visas

If a couple were to come into your office and tell you that they were legally married, had a child together, and had the results of a DNA test confirming that the husband was the father of the child, and they could tell you in advance that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) would accept that their relationship was genuine, would you think to yourself: “There should ultimately be excellent prospects of getting a partner visa approved for these clients?”

Well, perhaps you have heard of the famous song from the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta “HMS Pinafore” called: “Things Are Seldom What They Seem”! A recent decision from the AAT, 1409924 (Migration) (2015) AATA 3088 (15 July 2015) provides an illustration (surely in the realm of migration law, but also commonly in daily experience) just how accurate the title of this song really is. Or to put it another way, as RMAs know, “Life can be full of surprises”!

On the surface of things, the story of this couple’s relationship, while not without its complications, seemed straightforward enough. And, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, even if the evidence wasn’t sufficient to satisfy the Department about the genuineness of the relationship, it was strong enough to convince the Tribunal member. The true problem was lurking at a deeper level – the dreaded “Schedule 3”!!!!!

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 7369 3 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
2

Posted by on in General

The purpose of this article is to provide readers with details about the decision of Justice John Logan of the Federal Court in the case of Eden v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCA 780 (24 July 2015). 

As my colleague and fellow writer for the Migration Alliance blog, Jerry Gomez reported yesterday, Justice Logan has overturned a decision by the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator Michaela Cash, to cancel the visa of Mr Mas Eden.  Mr Eden’s visa was cancelled by the Assistant Minister on the ground that he did not meet the “character test” as a result of his having been convicted for a sexual offence while in Australia. Justice Logan decided to set aside the visa cancellation action on the grounds that it was “unreasonable”, and thus “infected” by jurisdictional error.

The factual background of the Eden case was as follows:

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 4351 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
3

Posted by on in General

Is there a difference between being given an opportunity to “comment” on adverse information at a merits review hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly the Migration Review Tribunal) and being given the opportunity to “respond” to that information? 

And if there is a difference, what difference does it make? 

Judge Cameron of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was called upon to answer these questions in the case of Shrivastava v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 483 (10 March 2015). 

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 4048 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
0
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Bizcover Banner
Summary of Ministerial Direction No. 111: Changes to Student Visa Processing
The Department of Home Affairs has introduced Mini...
Continue Reading...
Migration Legislation Amendment (Graduate Visas No. 2) Instrument (LIN 24/086) 2024
Important Updates to the Temporary Graduate Visa (...
Continue Reading...
Migration Amendment (Relevant Assessing Authorities and Other Matters) Instrument 2024
The Migration Amendment (Relevant Assessing Author...
Continue Reading...
Improved Visa Framework for Religious Workers
Effective from 13 December 2024, the updated Minis...
Continue Reading...
Migration Amendment (Graduate Visas No. 2) Regulations 2024
The Migration Amendment (Graduate Visas No. 2) Reg...
Continue Reading...