Australian Immigration Daily News

In yesterday’s post, I published news about the most consequential change to the Migration Regulations that will be introduced by the Migration Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Regulations 2017, which will affect Public Interest Criterion 4020.

The amendments, which were made by the Governor-General on 2 November 2017, and which will become effective on 18 November 2017, include a number of additional changes to the regulations.

A summary of these changes is provided below:

What a difference a few words can make!

To paraphrase my good pal from America Donald Trump (who was “elected”, so to speak, just 1 year ago!), "Yuge!” (translation from Trump-speak: “Huge!”)

On 2 November 2017, the Governor General made a hugely consequential change to Public Interest Criterion 4020 through the promulgation of the  Migration Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Regulations 2017. 

After the huge success in Sydney, Migration Alliance has arranged two more NZ immigration events.  To attend the NZ immigration seminar in Melbourne it is essential to RSVP.   

To RSVP please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Please put 'NZ Melbourne' in the subject of the email.  Space is limited and will be on a first come first served basis.

After the huge success in Sydney, Migration Alliance has arranged two more NZ immigration events.  To attend the NZ immigration seminar in Brisbane it is essential to RSVP.   

To RSVP for this event please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Please put 'NZ Brisbane' in the subject of the email.  Space is limited and will be on a first come first served basis.

How can you tell whether the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error when it has refused to grant a waiver of Public Interest Criterion 4020?

And how can you know whether it is “worth it” for your client to challenge the refusal in the Federal Circuit Court? In other words, that there are at least “reasonable prospects for success” if your client fights the waiver refusal in the FCC?

Fortunately, a decision handed down yesterday by Judge Riley of the FCC in Melbourne provides some useful guidance: Bi v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 2652 (1 November 2017).