Australian Immigration Daily News

Just how important is it for Registered Migration Agents to keep records concerning their communications with the Department, whether by email or by post?

Especially when the communication in question is intended to notify the Department of a change in the agent’s contact details for the purposes of receiving notification of a decision to refuse a visa application.

The lesson is illustrated by a case that was recently decided in the Federal Court, Bui v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 714 (23 June 2017).

Dear Colleagues,

I want to invite you to come to the MA conference which is being held at  Westpac- The Arena, Level 1, Tower 2, Barangaroo, Sydney 2000 on 21 July 2017.

I have negotiated a special deal for all of  my regular CPD attendees ( all 40 of you) to pay $1 for 3 CPD Conference points.

Migration cases can have a wacky, winding, crazy, tortured history, can’t they?

Our colleague Rajinder Bassan has brought just such a case that he recently handled to our attention, Khurana (Migration) (2017) AATA 1031 (19 June 2017).

This was the history:

When does an officer of the Australian Border Force have legal authority to search someone’s mobile phone in immigration clearance?

That question was presented in a case that was recently considered by Judge Dowdy of the Federal Circuit Court in a recent case, DOZ16 v Minister for Immigration (2017) FCCA 1157 (6 June 2017).

These were the circumstances of the case:

There has been another decision from the Federal Circuit Court that illustrates yet again that there is a high hurdle that must be overcome to obtain a “waiver” of Schedule 3  requirements by applicants  for Partner visas.

And this high hurdle continues to exist notwithstanding the decision of the Full Court in the Waensila case in March 2016 that the circumstances that are to be reviewed to determine whether there are “compelling reasons” for the grant of a “waiver” are not limited to those that were in existence at the time that the application for the Partner visa was lodged, but encompass any circumstance that has become extant at any time prior to the time that the decision whether to grant the “waiver”  is made.

The case that demonstrates the difficulties facing those seeking a “waiver” was Sohi v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1450 (12 June 2017) (reported on Austlii on 29 June 2017).