Australian Immigration Daily News

Sometimes when you read a news article you simply cannot believe your eyes!

Or you experience your eyeballs dropping out of your head in utter amazement and disbelief.

That was my reaction when I came across this article in today's Sydney Morning Herald which reports that the Department has adopted a policy that requires asylum seekers who are receiving taxpayer support to obtain the Department's approval before purchasing a household pet such as a dog or cat (the article indicates that there is no word as to whether the policy covers goldfish, guinea pigs or birds).

What makes a nomination of an occupation for a 457 visa “genuine”, such that the nomination satisfies subclause 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations and the nomination can be approved?

Does it matter whether the duties of the occupation will be performed on a full-time basis by the visa holder?

These questions were addressed in a decision of the Federal Circuit Court that was handed down earlier this week, Nguyen and Nguyen trading as Saigon Butchery v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 2155 (18 October 2017).

Australia’s premier body for Immigration Agents has chosen to partner with Bondle Australia to deliver a unique software to their Members

Sydney, Australia                                                                  20 October 2017

Bondle, a leading provider of client engagement software, announced today that Migration Alliance has chosen Bondle as the preferred client engagement software for their members. 

By Liana Allan MARN 0104178

We are back to the old citizenship rules.

The bill which failed to be accepted, had tried to impose a university-level English language requirement plus four years of living in Australia as a permanent resident prior to an application being made for Australian citizenship.

Does the Minister have an obligation to consider whether a visa holder is owed nonrefoulement obligations when deciding whether to cancel a visa?

Or is it “good enough” (sufficient to protect the visa cancellation decision against challenge) for the Minister simply to find that since it is open to the visa holder to apply for a Protection visa, there is no need to determine whether nonrefoulement obligations are owed?

This was the central issue in a case that was recently decided by Justice White of the Federal Court, Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No. 2) (2017) FCA 1218 (13 October 2017).