Australian Immigration Daily News

Sometimes an issue in migration law may seem head-spinningly technical, complex, and difficult to get your head around.

And yet, these seemingly obscure issues may have hugely important consequences!

This was illustrated by two recent companion decisions of Judge Smith of the Federal Circuit Court: DBD16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCCA 1801 and DBC16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCCA 1802.

How unusual is it for the Minister to seek judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

How about: “Incredibly”? (“The Incredibles” would probably like that answer!) 

I have been closely reading the migration decisions of the Federal Courts for the last 5 years and I have never seen a case involving an application by the Minister. 

How harsh is Australia’s system of visa cancellation under the Migration Act?

Very? Too? Not enough? Does it depend on your point of view?

Take for example the case of Maioha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCA 1015, decided very recently (9 July 2018) by Justice Perry of the Federal Court.

Can the Tribunal rely on that information as the basis for affirming the refusal of a visa application?

This interesting question was presented in a case that was decided by Judge Riethmuller of the Federal Circuit Court late last week, Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCCA 1726 (29 June 2018).

The background of the case was that the applicant was seeking a “Skilled (Residence)” visa, subclass 887.

Is applying for a subclass 485 – Temporary Graduate visa as “easy as pie”?

The criteria in Part 485 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 would “seem” to be straightforward, wouldn’t they?

Step One: Meet the common criteria of clauses 485.212 – 485.215: