Australian Immigration Daily News

Suppose you have a client who does not satisfy the character test because she/he has a substantial criminal record.

Suppose also that it has been determined by the Tribunal that the client is owed non-refoulement obligations on complementary protection grounds.

In these circumstances, if the Minister exercises powers under section 501A(2) of the Migration Act to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and refuses to grant a protection visa, is there any legal theory available to challenge the Minister’s actions?

Migration Alliance has received the following information from the AAT.  We have permission to publish:

Last year the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) developed six information videos to help people become familiar with our role and important aspects of our processes.

The videos include:

I recently gave some evidence before the Joint Standing committee about CPD.

https://migrationalliance.com.au/immigration-daily-news/entry/2018-07-transcript-from-public-hearing-on-efficacy-of-current-regulation-of-australian-migration-agents.html 

I think that CPD serves a number of important functions which include the following:

Migration Alliance would like to bring your attention to this transcript from the public hearing in Sydney on 16 July 2018.

JSCM---Hansard-July-2018.pdf

Migration Agents should take note of the comments made at the bottom of page 10 and page 11 from the MIA regarding CPD pricing.

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.