Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
CANBERRA MATRIX - INVITATION ROUND: 8 MAY 2019
Number of invitations issued: 225
Matrix score range: 135 points to 65 points submitted up to 31 March 2019
Information about the round, including the matrix score invited, is available HERE
...
Tomorrow a landmark trial will be held in the High Court of Australia to determine an important threshold question as to whether Aboriginal Australians can be considered an ‘alien’ under the Constitution and, as a result, be deported following a serious criminal conviction.
The special case is being brought on behalf of Aboriginal Australian men, Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms. It will be argued that both men are Australian nationals because they are Aboriginal people who, although born overseas, are not aliens under the Constitution.
Maurice Blackburn Senior Associate Claire Gibbs, who is acting for Mr Love and Mr Thoms, said the case was important in seeking to make clear that it was unacceptable, under the Constitution, for people who were clearly Australians to be subjected to the alien deportation powers.
...
The vast majority of agents get along well, and co-exist in the profession without problems.
Part 4 of the Code of Conduct has always interested me. Why is it there? Why do we need it? We are all professional and we all compete in this space without incident. We know all know what to do, and we all know how to behave. Why do we need to have a section of our Code of Conduct called “Relations Between Agents”? We are all peaceful. Right? WRONG.
Based on stories told and emails sent to me from RMAs, plus my own experiences over the last 15 years, I think Part 4 of the Code has its place. This part of the Code of Conduct attempts to deal with agent-to-agent relationships which can become unhealthy, and unprofessional. It does happen. When do agent-to-agent relationships become unhealthy?
...
| EPT17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 570 Federal Court of Australia Perry J Migration law - Minister's delegate refused to grant appellant a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) Subclass 790 visa - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed delegate's decision - Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissed judicial review application - appeal concerned finding that while appellant was 'at risk of persecution' he could relocate - appellant also sought to raise new appeal ground alleging Authority misunderstood criteria in s473DD Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - 'new information' - 'fast track review' - whether appellant met criterion in s473DD(a) Migration Act - held: appeal dismissed. EPT17 |
| DVI17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 31 Federal Court of Australia Moshinsky J Migration law - Minister's delegate refused to grant applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise visa - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed delegate's decision - Federal Circuit Court dismissed judicial review application - applicant sought extension of time to appeal - delay - explanation for delay - prejudice - appeal's merits - ss5H(1), 36(2)(a) & 36(2)(a)(a) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - held: application for extension of time dismissed. DVI17 |
| DHP17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 15 Federal Court of Australia Perram J Migration law - Minister's delegate found applicant not entitled to Safe Haven Enterprise Visa - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed delegate's decision - Federal Circuit Court dismissed applicant's proceeding 'summarily on a show cause basis' under r44.12(1)(a) Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) - appellant sought to appeal - whether Authority's approach to reports was inconsistent when regard had to reports' contents - held: Federal Circuit Court erred in finding applicant had 'no arguable case for jurisdictional error' - appeal allowed - matter remitted. DHP17 |
| Degning v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 67 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Allsop CJ; Collier & Thawley JJ Migration law - Minister for Home Affairs cancelled appellant's Class BF Transitional (Permanent) Visa under s501(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act) - primary judge dismissed judicial review proceedings - appellant appealed - whether Minister unauthorised by s501(2) Migration Act to cancel appellant's visa because appellant's 'right to remain indefinitely in Australia' had accrued before s501's introduction - whether basis for conclusion appellant had 'disregarded the law' by statement on 'Incoming Passenger Cards' (passenger cards) that 'he had no criminal convictions' and declaration he had given truthful answers - whether, if basis for conclusion, there was denial of procedural fairness due to failure to put appellant on notice of conclusion - whether obligation on appellant to 'disclose spent convictions' - statutory construction - s7(2)(c) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) - whether issue concerning Minister's use of passenger cards in relation to 'risk of re-offending' should have been brought to appellant's attention - held: appellant was denied procedural fairness - appeal allowed - Minister's decision set aside. Degning |
| BBE17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 573 Federal Court of Australia Murphy J Migration law - Minister's delegate refused to grant appellant a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed delegate's decision - Federal Circuit Court dismissed application for judicial review - appellant appealed on two grounds - first ground concerned new information's treatment under s473DD Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - second ground concerned allegation that Authority failed to deal with integer of appellant's claim 'to fear serious or significant harm' - second ground had not been raised in Federal Circuit Court - held: Court granted leave to appeal on second ground of appeal - Court allowed appeal on second ground. BBE17 |
Immi account issues
Users of Immi account are advised that there are ongoing technical issues affecting the system. Certain visas applications are showing the following items as outstanding regardless of whether these were provided:
Home Affairs advised that the above issues are being investigated by the technical team and will be fixed in due course. In the meantime, if applicants or agents should disregard notice for outstanding documents if the documents or information has already been provided to immigration.
...
Login / Join
