Australian Immigration Daily News

Are you looking for English testing options for your clients?

TOEFL® test expert Cath Moore from ETS Global will present “TOEFL Insights for Agents” on August 29 in Perth to help migration agents and migration lawyers stay informed about the choices of English-language tests for skilled migrants.

As an organisation that works closely with migration agents and lawyers, we understand the requisite need for your clients to fulfil Training Benchmark requirements in the process of a 457 and 186 visa.

At Ausskill, we provide an auditable, structured program that satisfies all requirements of Training Benchmark B. We offer a same-day service delivery of necessary plans and documentation, and are flexible in offering delivery of our training plans at the client’s location if requested.

Our training and development plans cover a broad spectrum of industries, and can be tailored to suit preferences or requirements.

Will being charged with a drugs offence spell disaster for a citizenship application?

What if the applicant does not disclose on the citizenship application that she/he has been charged with an offence?

What if the applicant does not acknowledge responsibility for the offence in correspondence with the Department?

Is there any way to challenge successfully a decision of a delegate to refuse to grant a waiver of the infamous “no further stay” condition, Condition 8503, that is commonly attached to “visitor visas”?

That question was presented once again in a case that was decided last week by Judge Siopsis of the Federal Court, Karan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 872 (2 August 2017).

As readers will be aware, a decision of a delegate to refuse a waiver of Condition 8503 is not subject to merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 

Is there any way to salvage a partner visa application that has been “knocked back” by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

Suppose, for example, that the Tribunal has made a finding that it was not satisfied that based on “inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence” it was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, that any commitment was genuine and continuing, or that they lived together or that did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis? 

Is that necessarily the end of the story?