Australian Immigration Daily News

Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction! 

And sometimes, the facts in migration cases are truly out of the ordinary, unusual, or just plain “wacky”! 

And sometimes, a person’s migration history is so “checkered” or questionable that when they encounter problems under the migration legislation, they are left in a position of “grasping at straws” , or trying to “toss arguments at a wall and hoping that one sticks”! 

Anyone with a history of family or domestic violence may be banned from becoming a sponsor in a partner visa application under legislative amendments being considered by parliament.

Currently, sponsors face little scrutiny in the application process and do not require police clearances unless there are children under the age of 18 involved in the application. The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill, introduced in the March parliamentary sitting, however is seeking to screen Australians with a history of family or domestic violence from sponsoring a partner visa.

"We have, in relation to domestic violence, a very strong position as a government and that is we are not going to facilitate these arrangements where we think there is a reasonable risk that there may be violence in the relationship,” explained Immigration Minister Mr Peter Dutton.

...

Labour market testing is a process which employers must undergo to access the 457 visa sponsorship programme. It is not required for all occupations, however we recommend that labour market testing be a core component for all 457 visa applications nonetheless!

Just to recap what we already know, the purpose of Labour Market Testing is to test the local labour market, to ensure that there is no suitably qualified and experienced Australian Citizen or Permanent Resident from the local labour market readily available to fill the position.

In short, the process was introduced to meet genuine skills shortages.

Super wealthy nationals from China, Europe, the UK, the US and South Africa are increasingly looking to get out of their home countries seeking out safe havens for their funds and lifestyle according to the report Millionaire Migration in 2015.

Sydney and Melbourne have been uncovered as the main destination cities for millionaires by the report with an inflow of some 4000 and 3000 millionaires in 2015 taking their totals to 95,400 and 66,800 respectively. Other Australian cities including Perth, the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Noosa and the Sunshine Coast were also named as favourite destinations for the super-rich - defined by the report as individuals with net assets of US$1 million or more excluding their primary residences.

The top cities with the greatest outflow of millionaires were Paris, Rome, Chicago, and Athens. The report claims that a record 10,000 millionaires left Paris last year due to rising religious/racial tensions. Similar reasons plus rising crime levels and deteriorating economic conditions were cited as reasons why the other cities were experiencing an exodus of the rich.

Suppose the AAT fails to consider certain evidence that is put to it. 

Does that amount to jurisdictional error, by itself? And does it provide a basis to get the decision of the AAT “quashed”, or overturned, in the Federal Circuit Court? 

A recent decision from the Federal Court – Liew v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCA 172 (2 March 2016) (Judge Rangiah) tells us: “It ain't necessarily so!”