Australian Immigration Daily News

This afternoon the Department of Home Affairs released further information on the Skilling Australians Fund (SAF). 

As many would be aware, the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018 (the Act), passed by the Parliament of Australia on 9 May 2018, is expected to be implemented during the first quarter of 2018-19.    This means an implementation date between 1 July 2018 and 30 September 2018. 

As the Act states, 

Migration Alliance will be selecting one Registered Migration Agent for a AUD $1000 prize based on their participation in the Migration Alliance forum. Entry is open to all Registered Migration Agents.

This is about contribution, effort and participation over the next week.

The more you participate and the better your posts within the locked migration agent forum, the more you will be in the running to win the $1000 prize.

As lawyers who represent applicants in proceedings before the Federal Courts will be aware, it "ain't" that common that the Minister will concede that the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error and will agree that "constitutional writs" should be granted quashing the Tribunal's decision and remitting the decision back to the Tribunal "for re-determination in accordance with law".

But as the saying goes, "miracles do happen" and in fact in a small percentage of cases, the Minister will accept that the judicial review application is meritorious and that the case should be settled.

A recent judgment that was issued by Judge Street of the Federal Circuit Court, Chu v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2018) FCCA 1289 (17 May 2018) provides a sound reminder of the practice that should be followed when there has been agreement to settle a case.

Should Australia be cancelling the visas of persons who are owed protection under Australia’s international treaty obligations?

Is it enough that Australia punish people who are convicted of criminal offences while holding protection visas, or should they be “sent back” to the countries of their nationality notwithstanding that they would be at risk of harm?

How should the balance be struck between the very legitimate interest in protecting the Australian community from the risk of harm associated with releasing a person with a serious criminal history, and, on the other hand, Australia’s “non-refoulement” obligations?

Can a visa applicant be asked to leave the hearing room when the Tribunal takes evidence from another witness?

If so, under what circumstances?

These issues may seem “technical” and of interest only to “lawyers”.