Australian Immigration Daily News

Do you want to read a story that illustrates why it is a poor idea for an applicant to turn the whole process of completing a visa application over to a “consultant”, without checking the contents of the application for accuracy?

Or why it really is “bets practice” for a Registered Migration Agent to have the applicant review all the information that is provided on an Internet visa application before clicking on the “submit” button?

Then look no farther than the recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court in the case of Ashiq v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 544 (7 March 2018).

On 18 April 2017, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection announced that major changes would be introduced to Australia’s temporary skilled visa programme.

Of course, the most significant of these changes was the proposed abolition of the Subclass 457 visa, and the replacement of that visa with what will be known as the Temporary Skill Shortage (“TSS”) visa.

The changes that were announced in April 2017 are expected to come into force  at some  time  this month,  although the exact date is not certain: it will be whenever the legislation required to implement the changes comes into force.

Heartbreaking. Simply heartbreaking.

There is no other way to describe the story of an applicant who had been “scammed” by an unscrupulous person, and whose ability to remain lawfully in Australia now appears to be completely ruined.

And the true shame of it is that the Australian government doesn’t seem to have taken any action to shut down the scammers (who are not, by the way, Registered Migration Agents).

Dear Migration Alliance Members

Free from the constraints of running, Secretary Clinton will share the intense personal experience of becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party in an election marked by rage, sexism, exhilarating highs and infuriating lows, stranger-than-fiction twists, Russian interference, and an opponent who broke all the rules.

If we get 50 registering we get our own “cocktail” party.

Is the recent (December 2017) decision of the Full Court in He v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCAFC 206 a complete “game changer” when it comes to partner visa applications?

Does the He decision mean that the Tribunal must expressly and specifically refer to each and every one of the “circumstances of the relationship” that are listed in Regulation 1.15(A)(3)?

Or is it “good enough” (that is, “good enough” to prevent the Tribunal’s decision from being “quashed” or “set aside” if it is apparent from the Tribunal’s decision record that the Tribunal has “considered” all of the circumstances that are listed in Regulation 1.15(A)(3) – even if the Tribunal does not discuss each and every one of these circumstances expressly and specifically?