Australian Immigration Daily News

Can a New Zealand citizen who is present in Australia on a “Special Category”, Subclass 444 visa, qualify for Australian citizenship?

Or to put the question slightly differently, are there any circumstances under which a New Zealand citizen who is the holder of a Special Category visa acquire the status of a permanent resident of Australia?

These questions were raised in a decision that was handed down by the AAT on 25 August, Carr v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) (2017) AATA 1361 (25 August 2017).

Are you ready for another quiz to test your knowledge of Australian migration law?

Ready or not, here it is:

Can a person have his visa cancelled without being convicted of a criminal offence, and indeed without even failing the “character test” provided in section 501(6) of the Migration Act?

Update 31 August 2017 at 9:00am: The MIA have issued the following statement in their newsletter dated 25 August 2017:

It has come to our attention that Christopher Levingston, on the Migration Alliance website, has published allegations that the Board of the MIA is under investigation by the Office of the MARA. This publication is an absolutely baseless and malicious fabrication with no truth or fact whatsoever. The MIA and the Board reserve their rights and will seek legal advice on the best action to take going forward.

____________________________________________

Will having a “checkered” immigration history prevent a person from becoming an Australian citizen?

Will living in Australia for more than 20 years as an unlawful non-citizen, working unlawfully, and not paying tax on earnings, cause a citizenship application to be refused?

What if the applicant ultimately does gain lawful status?

Was the “regional processing arrangement” that was entered into by the Australian government with the government of Papua New Guinea within the lawful powers of the government? 

That question was raised in a case that was brought in the High Court by an Iranian asylum seeker that was decided late last week, Plaintiff S195-2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) HCA 31 (17 August 2017). 

The background of this case was that the plaintiff entered the migration zone at Christmas Island on 24 July 2013 as an “unauthorised maritime arrival”, claiming to be a refugee.