Some times, you just can win no matter what you do!

And that is true even in circumstances where the application of the migration legislation may appear to work an “unjust result”!

A case that recently came before the Federal Court, Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCA 1059 (1 October 2015) provides a graphic illustration of how this can happen.

Residents of the Liverpool and Holsworthy areas have raised concerns over a report stating that some 7,000 Syrian refugees are to be settled in their neighbourhood.

Several concerned residents have contacted Liana Allan, Convenor of Migration Alliance on the matter saying that they are angry, scared and concerned why the refugees are not being dispersed across NSW.

Some residents told the Migration Alliance that they are concerned about the 7,000 refugees being condensed into their geographic area and wanted to know why they aren’t being spread out across NSW or the country. Residents are concerned about the lack of consultation and transparency in the resettlement matter.

Migration Alliance raised the issue with Mayor of Liverpool City Council, Ned Mannoun, who indicated that despite efforts to garner information on the issue, his office has received ‘no formal notification’ of the resettlement numbers.

The following information has just been received from the Office of the MARA (from an unnamed person or potentially a robot).  I thought all DIBP delegates needed to identify themselves and their position numbers.  Maybe just not the Office of the MARA delegates.  Anyway...

Dear Registered Migration Agent,

The following information is being sent on behalf of the New Zealand Immigration Advisers Authority:

Back in May 2014 we covered a story on the best 'professional library' service for Migration Agents.

After receiving an email notice today regarding LexisNexis delays, I was prompted to give my opinion on which professional library service I think is best and most reliable for RMAs.

The winner for the most reliable service is still the DIBP's own government product, in my opinion is still LEGENDCom.

The former acting minister for immigration may not have had the power to issue the order which effectively cancelled the visa applications of some 16,000 foreigners.

In one of her last acts as assistant immigration minister, Michaelia Cash ruled that an annual cap of 284 places for three types of skilled migration visas - namely sc 175, 176, and 475 - had been reached, and all outstanding applications "are taken not to have been made", or cancelled without a trace. There was no consultation or consideration given its impact on the thousands who waited patiently for up to 9 years - just indifference.

There has been talk of High Court action to challenge the order by many since the instrument came into effect last month. Now the first salvo is set to be struck. Immigration Law Specialist and Migration Alliance Treasurer, Christopher Levingston is in the process of planning High Court proceedings to challenge the acting ministers order on the basis that she simply did not have the authority or the power to cease and cap these cases.

Despite the significant impact on the lives of so many people the department of immigration has maintained an attitude of indifference to the plight of all those affected by this sudden decision.

A DIBP spokesperson downplayed the impact of its decision on thousands and told the ABC that the skilled migrants affected were a "low priority" category and would have had trouble finding jobs here.