Australian Immigration Daily News

Migration Alliance recommends the ACU's Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice.

Tailored for busy professionals

The Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice equips students with the knowledge, understanding and practical skills required to practice as a qualified Migration Agent in Australia. 

Do you think that Public Interest Criterion 4020 should impose “strict” or “absolute” liability on a visa applicant?

Should PIC 4020 be applied as grounds for the refusal of an application when an applicant plays no role at all in the creation of a “bogus document”, and that document is in fact created and sent to the Department with the malign purpose of sabotaging or destroying the visa application?

Is it enough that an applicant gives documents to an “intermediary” to send to the Department, and that intermediary then creates the bogus document?

How important do you think it is to read every single word in a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal carefully? 

Would you be prepared to accept that it is exceptionally, extremely, incredibly, unbelievably important that you do so? 

If you are not yet convinced, or even if you are convinced, keep reading! 

How do you know if the Federal Circuit Court has properly considered your case?

This is an extremely important question for visa applicants who have sought to challenge of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which have affirmed the refusal of their visa applications.

It is surely true that the vast majority of visa applicants who take their cases to the Federal Circuit Court are not represented by lawyers – either due to lack of money to pay a lawyer, or apprehension that it will be extremely expensive to have a lawyer appear for them (in reality, the costs of getting legal representation in a migration matter are likely significantly less than for other types of litigation in Australia, as migration cases are generally dealt with in a “half-day hearing” ).

Is the Migration Act consistent with the expectations of a democratic society?

For example, it is consistent with the concept of the presumption of innocence?

Or does the Act incorporate some “authoritarian” features that may be considered to give the “Executive” – those administering the Act - disproportionate and excessive power to unfairly curtail the rights of visa holders?