Australian Immigration Daily News

A common problem which has been on the boil since the decision in Berenguel

http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2010/HCA/8

A recent enquiry from a Colleague has generated the following draft which may be of assistance to my colleagues generally; the alternative is to simply concede and then throw yourself at the feet of the Minister under section 351 and beg for mercy..

In recent weeks I have noticed that the Invitation to a hearing at the AAT, apart from including details of the hearing date and time as well as the Member now appear, on a regular basis, to include an "Invitation to comment or respond".

The failure to respond to the "invitation to comment or respond" within the time frame specified, which may or may not be the date of the hearing,can lock your client out of a merits review at the AAT who, absent a reply can proceed to determine the Application "on the papers".

Previously it was the practice of the AAT to issue a standalone "Invitation to Comment or Respond" which very clearly set out what information was required and when.

On 1 August 2019 the Senate referred the below matters to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2019. On 16 September 2019 the Senate extended the reporting date to the last sitting day in February 2020. The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows: 

The impact of changes to service delivery models on the administration and running of Government programs, with particular reference to:

1. the privatisation of Australia’s visa and citizenship program, including:

Here is a tip for the busy practitioner.

If you are doing a ministerial intervention request try to get the local Federal member involved.

If the press get on board....even better!

I thought practitioners might be interested in the role of policy in respect of delays in the processing and finalisation of 890 applications.

This will be of particular assistance to Colleagues running matters at the AAT where the first instance 890 application was refused and in the intervening period the business has also collapsed and has ceased to trade.

The argument runs like this: