The MIA Board has appointed the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as the Returning Officer for this year's elections. The MIA has previously used the AEC to hold its elections until they were able to hold their elections online.  In their recent newsletter they say:

"This MIA election will be returning to the postal vote system under the management of the AEC Returning Officer."

The MIA have provided the a schedule of events for this year's elections, which is outlined in the table below.

Why the 'United Profession' Ticket?

Migration Alliance has a membership of just over 4200 RMAs.  There are approximately 5200 RMAs in the profession.  Migration Alliance and the MIA therefore have a huge number of members in common.  We call these overlapping members.  

Migration Alliance proposes to promote and endorse joint MIA / MA members on a 'unity' ticket.  By this we would like to see a unified profession, where members of the MIA board, who are both MIA and MA members, find a way to bring the two organisations together, and to work collaboratively in the best interest of the whole profession.

We believe that this can be done by supporting joint MIA/MA members onto State President and committee positions and hence, onto the MIA national executive.  That way, we have representatives on the MIA board who can advocate and agitate for the profession as a whole.

Melbourne Cup Party

Migration Alliance and Expat Advisors Community

Welcome to the Victorian Government's Agent Alert for migration agents and representatives.

In this edition:

• Changes to the Victorian State Nomination Occupation Lists
• Assessment processing times
• SkillSelect changes – lodge directly with Victoria
• Business Migration Updates
  • Demonstrating economic benefit for Victorian business visa nomination
  • Significant Investor visa nomination application form update
  • Export business activity and economic benefit to Victoria
  • Additional business or investment activity requirements for Business Investor visa
  • Change of business activity.

  Changes to the Victorian State Nomination Occupation list

  ...

In what may well be Peter Dutton’s last major move as immigration minister, legislation was introduced to the Parliament to make it a criminal offence for a sponsor to be paid by a visa applicant in return for securing a migration outcome.

The Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015 amends the Migration Act 1958 ('the act') to introduce a new criminal and civil penalty regime that will make it unlawful for a person to ask for, receive, offer or provide payment or other benefits in return for a range of sponsorship related events. The bill also allows visa cancellation to be considered where the visa holder has engaged in such conduct, referred to as 'payment for visas' conduct.

'Payment for visas' conduct is not currently unlawful. However a key recommendation of the independent review into the subclass 457 program recommended that legislation is introduced to strengthen the integrity of the program by allowing action to be taken where 'payment for visas' conduct has occurred.

In his second reading speech, Mr Dutton noted that 'payment for visas' conduct may occur through an employer offering to sponsor a visa applicant in return for a payment or benefit. It may occur before the applicant applies for a visa or during the visa holder's stay in Australia. Evidence obtained through monitoring sponsors indicates that the sponsor and applicant are complicit in the majority of 'payment for visas' activity. Employers may also exploit an employee by requiring payment in return for an ongoing sponsorship.

The bill will amend the act to make it a criminal offence for a sponsor or other third party to ask for or receive a benefit in relation to a sponsorship related event. The offence will be punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment or a fine of up to 360 penalty units, which currently equates to $64,800 for an individual person or five times higher—$324,000—for a body corporate.

The bill introduces civil penalties applicable to a sponsor, visa applicant or any other third party who asks for or receives, or provides or offers a benefit in relation to a sponsorship related event. The maximum pecuniary penalty is 240 penalty units, which currently equates to $43,200 for an individual person or five times higher—$216,000—for a body corporate.

If you were to kill your wife of 30 years by repeatedly hitting her in the head with a hammer while she slept next to your 8 year old child, and the child woke up during the attack and witnessed some of the fatal blows, what chance  do you think  you would have of getting the Full Court to reverse a decision by the Minister to cancel your visa? 

Well, if you would rate the prospects of a person who has been convicted of such a heinous crime as being “negligible”, “non-existent”, “microscopic”, “below the size of a subatomic particle” or, as Australian lawyers love to say “doomed to failure” – you’d be right!! 

Such was the result in the case of Roesner v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015)  FCAFC 132 (15 September 2015). Yes, in this case the Full Court dismissed a challenge to the Minister’s cancellation of his visa on character grounds. This despite the fact that the visa holder had lived in Australia for over 40 years at the time of the offence, and notwithstanding his pleas that he wished to grow old with his children by staying in Australia” (at the time that his visa was cancelled, in August 2014, the visa holder would have been about 73 years old).