Below is information sent by reader Maggie Taaffe last Friday.

Hi Peter

Please see my email to the AAT below and the response.
Cheers

Earlier this year a Federal Circuit Court judge set aside a decision of the MRT affirming a decision by the Department to refuse a student visa.

The judge held that a student visa applicant wishing to (ultimately) settle in Australia did not fail to meet the requirement that overseas students must have an intention to “genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.”

Below is an extract from his judgement

38 The Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by assuming that the applicant’s wishing to settle in Australia in the long term, if given the opportunity, implied that the applicant did not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal thus failed to consider whether the applicant intended to return to her home country at the end of the period for which the Subclass 573 visa she applied for would be valid.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2015/1971.html

Amidst the growing European refugee crisis, Prime Minister Tony Abbott is under increasing pressure from the Opposition, refugee groups and some members of his own party to boost the number of Syrian refugees Australia accepts.

Mr Abbott has said he is prepared to lift the percentage of Syrian refugees, but maintains that does not mean Australia's annual overall intake of 13,750 would rise.

Refugee Council of Australia president Phil Glendenning has told ABC radio Australia’s contribution so far has been “shameful” and the government must do more.

"When you look at the scale of the humanitarian disaster that's taking place, arising out of the challenges in Syria, to say that we're not going to be increasing our intake is not stepping up," the shadow defense minister Senator Conroy told ABC's Radio National.

The International Organisation for Migration estimates that more than 350,000 migrants were detected at the EU's borders between January and August this year. And there is potential for this number to keep climbing.

Violence and civil war in Syria and Iraq have displaced millions. An estimated 1.7 million refugees are in Turkey, 1.2 million in Lebanon, more than 600,000 in Jordan, hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Egypt. Another 7 million are internally displaced inside Syria. Roughly half of the country's entire pre-war population are refugees, at home or abroad.

The following email has been received by Liana Allan of Migration Alliance today:

"Thank you for your email of Wednesday 2 September where you sought information about the OMARA.  The 2014  Review of the OMARA recommended that the OMARA be fully integrated back into the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

This integration was completed with effect from 1 July 2015 and the OMARA now sits in the Visa and Citizenship Services Group of the Department which reports to the Secretary of the Department. The OMARA now reports directly to Ms Mary-Jane Jones, Regional Director NSW/ACT.

It will come as no surprise to RMAs that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly the Migration Review Tribunal) is, like all human institutions, capable of making mistakes and, on the basis of those mistakes, “getting things wrong” and reaching a determination that is adverse to a visa applicant, when in fact the evidence should have led to a positive outcome in favour of the applicant. In fact, I can already hear a chorus of readers saying either "Amen!!!" or "For heaven's sake Michael, don't you think we all know that already!!!"

One can only be extremely thankful that the Federal courts exist in order to correct erroneous decisions by the AAT when they occur.  However, as will also be well known to RMAs, there is only very limited scope to challenge an incorrect factual finding by the AAT, as judicial review proceedings are generally limited to an assessment of whether the Tribunal has made a “jurisdictional error”:  for example, failing to have regard to a relevant matter,  assigning weight to irrelevant matter, or making an error of law.

Indeed, the limited scope of judicial review can cause one to wonder about the fundamental fairness and appropriateness of the hearing procedures at the AAT.  Granted, the AAT has a heavy case load that it must work its way through. But even accepting that is the case, should an RMA/migration lawyer really be required to “sit silently” at a Tribunal hearing and not be allowed to make oral submissions at the close of the hearing to direct the Tribunal member’s attention to matters of importance that are critical to the outcome of the case?