From early December 2015, changes will be made to visa requirements for the subclass 457 visa. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection announced that those applying for the Temporary Work (Skilled) Visa (Subclass 457) will be required to fulfill a number of new obligations in order to be granted the right to work in the country for an approved business for up to four years.  It is anticipated that this change will shed light on some otherwise confusing aspects of the visa process for new immigrants applying to the program.

Under these new regulations, holders of the 457 visa must obtain compulsory licensing or registration within 90 days of arriving in Australia or within the same time frame if they are already in the country when their visa is granted. Holders of the 457 visa must also commence work within 90 days of arriving in Australia or within 90 days of being granted a visa if already in Australia at the time the application was made.

For the requirements on ComLaw see here: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L01808

Facts:

1. The migration agent submits a 457 business nomination and is the authorised person.

2. The 457 business sponsorship is already approved and the migration agent is the authorised person.

Should a doctor who has been convicted of sexually abusing a 19 year old female patient while working in the public health service have his Australian visa cancelled on character grounds? 

That question was presented to the Full Court in the case of Durani v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) that was decided in July of last year.

One might hazard to guess that if such a criminal history – which, by the way, resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months – were viewed in isolation, apart from any other circumstance of the case - that there is literally no one who would not wholeheartedly agree that a person who has committed such an offence richly deserves to have his entitlement to remain in Australia cancelled. 

After being given the run around for several months to a request for DIBPs staff contact details under the FOI, the DIBP eventually refused the request of Melbourne Solicitor Maria Jockel who then had to turn to the office of the Information Commissioner for a review of the decision.

DIBP provided various excuses to Ms Jockel late last year on why they could not provide her with information relating to “the structure of the Department and various contact lists for particular sections within the Department, including the ‘top structure’ of senior management.”

“Ms Jockel particularly sought the Department’s Australian State and Global structure charts; and contact lists that identify the position names, title, telephone number and email addresses of relevant staff members.” According to the Information Commissioners decision.

The DIBP responses effectively told her to look it up online indicating that it would take too much time and effort and may potentially require them to consult with ‘several hundred employees’ before providing her with their personal information. Ironically, Ms Jockel had successfully obtained similar information under the FOI from the DIBP on previous occasions.

The Information Commissioner was not satisfied with DIBPs responses and found that the DIBP “has not discharged its onus under s 55D of the FOI Act of establishing that its decision is justified…” and ordered the DIBP to “process Ms Maria Jockel’s request, and notify her of its decision no later than 30 days…”

Dear Migration Alliance Member

Calling all Referral Partners CLICK HERE 

Migration Cover, the world’s first migration insurance for your skilled/457 clients, provides cover for: