In today’s post, I will continue with my consideration of the question: “How much of a problem does Public Interest Criterion 4020 really present?” 

Readers of the blog will recall that in a post earlier this week, our colleagues at Migration Alliance called attention to two recent decisions of the Federal Circuit Court where a  failure to satisfy PIC 4020 had led to the refusal of visa applications.  In yesterday’s post, I presented a discussion of one of those cases,

Katragadda v Minister for Immigration & Anor.  Today, I turn to the second case, Sun & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 2479 (11 September 2015).

What started off as the biggest wage scandal in Australian history, is now turning out to be much more than that with accusations of  an ‘indentured labour scheme’ being run by some 7-Eleven franchisees who operated ‘visa factories’ to supplement their income and run their businesses well under award wage rates by forcing students to breach visa laws.

Foreigners have been paying between $25,000 and $70,000 to certain 7-Eleven franchises to sponsor them on a visa, alleges a recent Fairfax report.

The report said that it has uncovered evidence that, “some franchisees are running as one-stop recruitment shops providing a steady stream of heavily indentured students and other workers into 7-Eleven stores.

“Foreign students as well as workers on 457 visas are understood to be part of the "visa factory" scam operated by some 7-Eleven franchisees. The model has franchisees charging workers $25,000 to $70,000 to sponsor them on a visa,” the report alleges.

The scandal has now become a matter set for a senate hearing in Melbourne today, where senior executives from the company as well as 7-Eleven workers who have been victims of wage fraud will appear.

Followers of this blog will recall that Migration Alliance posted an article this past Tuesday (22 September 2015) concerning two recent cases mentioned in Peter Bollard’s newsletter involving Public Interest Criterion 4020. 

That post by Migration Alliance (entitled: “Be very afraid” (in other words, of the possible obstacle that         PIC 4020 might present to successful visa applications)) piqued my curiousity about what happened in those cases, and about how serious a problem PIC 4020 really is. 

This post provides details about one of the cases mentioned in Peter Bollard’s newsletter, Katragadda v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 2478 (11 September 2015). 

This is a sample of what to expect if you or your client is caught in the Cap and Cease pool of persons.  Below is a sample email and attachment from the DIBP with client identifiers removed:

"This email regarding your application is automatically generated.

As this email is an automated notification we are unable to receive replies. Please do not respond to this email address.