Australian Immigration Daily News

Do miracles, or at least unexpected outcomes, ever happen in migration cases? 

Is it worth pursuing an application for judicial review even where it might seem at first blush that the Minister might have an “open and shut” case? 

Is the Genuine Temporary Entrant criterion for the grant of student visas an insurmountable obstacle? 

Are you ready for another quiz?

OK, whether you are ready or not, here it is:

Suppose you have a client who has submitted a “bogus document” to the Department in support of an application for a Subclass 485 visa.  There is no argument that the document is in fact bogus.  So your client needs to get a “waiver” of Public Interest Criterion 4020.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has invalidated a policy that prohibited all persons who are being  held in immigration detention from having mobile phones or SIM cards.

The Court’s decision to overturn the policy was made in a ruling that was handed down on 22 June 2018 in the case of ARJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCAFC 98.

The policy had its origins in a note that was prepared by the Australian Border Force in early 2016. This minute noted that while a policy was then in force prohibiting all “illegal maritime arrivals” from having and using mobile phones, that policy did not extend to other persons in detention. 

Do you consider that it is difficult/impossible to challenge a visa cancellation decision made under section 109 of the Migration Act?

Maybe in some cases it won’t be as hard as it may seem!

Recall that under section 109, the Minister may cancel the visa of a person who has been “immigration cleared” if the visa holder has not complied with sections 101 – 105 of the Act.

How can you tell the difference between “merits review” and jurisdictional error?

Would it be a good idea to make a pilgrimage to Greece and consult the Oracle of Delphi?

Or would it be better to consult a Ouija Board or have other assistance from occult sources?