Australian Immigration Daily News

Review of General Skilled Migration for 2017/2018 is well and truly is motion with the South Australian government releasing the latest update.

From 9am (Australian Central Standard Time) on 19 April 2017, the requirement for high points nomination will increase from 80 to 85 points. This change is in response to the overall quota being achieved under the existing 80 points requirement.

This change will not affect applications lodged prior to this time. Applications for high points nomination received after this time will be refused if they do not meet the 85 points requirement.

An interesting story came in on Friday afternoon last week.  Unfortunately, as Migration Alliance could not identify the RMA, we chose not to assist.   If anyone has any comments about this, please post them in the comments section:

From: Jane Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >

Dear Migration Alliance, 

Is the Tribunal required to hold a separate hearing to determine whether it should grant an applicant’s request for an adjournment?

And if the Tribunal doesn’t hold the separate hearing, has it fallen into jurisdictional error? If it declines to allow the hearing on the adjournment request, has it acted “unreasonably” in the legal sense?

These were the questions that were presented in a case that was decided in late March by the Federal Court of Australia, Bhandari v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 272.

OK everyone here’s your opportunity to share your experience and wisdom through another open forum!

Today’s topic: Have you had any success in getting  the “notorious” Condition 8503  “no further stay” “waived”?

Earlier this month I posted an article about a case that was decided by the Federal Circuit Court called Farhat, in which I described the challenge of getting 8503 waived as being harder than pushing a boulder uphill.   And just before Christmas of last year, I discussed another case in which an 8503 waiver was unsuccessfully sought, called Karan.  My tart and seasonal reference to that case was that it was “another lump of coal from the Department”, in other words a circumstance where in my view regulatory inflexibility prevailed over compassion.

In this day and age, it is truly shocking, appalling, terrifying and tragic for people from Western societies to contemplate that “honour killings” still occur in other countries (like Pakistan).

Maybe not as shocking as one might prefer to think, in light of the raging epidemic of lethal domestic violence that continues to afflict Australia.  And in light of the raging misogyny freely given voice to by the now “president” of the United States, a person who was elected notwithstanding his own widely publicized (Access Hollywood tape) statements that he believes that his “celebrity” entitles him to treat women as objects and to use them for his own purposes as he sees fit, and the evidence of about a dozen women who came forward to provide accounts of his conduct as a serial sexual predator.

So self-evidently, and incredibly disappointing  and disturbing as it is, the world has not come as far as we might hope in recognizing the rights of women to full equality and to be protected from violence and the threat of violence.