Australian Immigration Daily News

Do you think there is little you can do to help your client at a hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? 

Do you think that your role as a migration agent or lawyer at the Tribunal amounts to being nothing more than a “bump on a log” as a result of section 366A(2) of the Migration Act ­– which provides that: 

“The assistant is not entitled to present arguments to the Tribunal, or to address the Tribunal, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, because of exceptional circumstances, the assistant should be able to do so”? 

We recently handled a case in which a consumer product wholesale business was planning to hire a Technical Sales Representative. On the surface, it may seem like a straightforward case, especially because the position fits the nature of the business. However, the case officer still questioned about the genuine position.

Apart from compiling and addressing the IMMI checklist in a thorough and logical way through a methodological approach, we structured the genuine position report that harnessed the need of the nominated occupation within this particular business’ context.

We analysed the case within the viewpoint of the wholesale and consumer product industry and were able to appropriately structure a report that:

How is the Office of the Migration Agents  Registration Authority to interpret the concept of “fit and proper person” under section 290 of the Migration Act? 

Is it possible to become a Registered Migration Agent even if you have a history of criminal convictions in Australia? 

Suppose a conviction is “spent”? What does that term mean? And can a “spent” conviction be taken into account when the MARA considers an application from a person seeking to become a RMA? 

There has been another hugely significant decision from the Full Court on the question of whether a visa

applicant will be held responsible for a fraud carried out by a migration agent. 

The decision was handed down in the case of Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCAFC 142 (17 October 2016).  

Is there any way to get your client out from under a section 48 bar? 

For example, suppose your client has gone to another migration agent, and that agent has submitted an application for a skilled visa that is based on a fraudulent skills assessment? And the skilled visa is a visa that your client could never have satisfied the eligibility criteria? 

Is there any remedy in this situation?