Changes to Australia’s Significant Investor Visa in July this year have apparently resulted in a drop in the number of applications lodged to just seven according to a report in the Financial Times. Are investors heading elsewhere?

In an attempt to stop the flow of funds into the Australian property market, the government’s new rules essentially forced investor funds away from government bonds and the property market into high risk investments.

Some investment analysts have said that the changes to the SIV program would have a deterrent effect on the program with investors likely to shop elsewhere for their visa.

Tana Xuren, managing director of Lodestone Capital, a Melbourne-based financial advisory firm, told The Australian earlier this year that the Chinese who made up more than 90 per cent of all SIV applicants were conservative investors who preferred safe bets rather than high-risk ventures required under the new program.

“Many SIV clients are in their 50s. They have made their money from manufacturing and real estate; they are risk-averse. For some of them, putting money into venture capital is the same as paying fees to the Australian government...They don’t expect to get their money back.”

This initiative is spearheaded by Mark Glazbrook, RMA, who has sent the following email to Migration Alliance.  We support Mark's initiative and provide a copy (with permission) of Mark's email below.  Please contact Mark directly should you wish to contribute.

Currently I am trying to raise $30-$35K from interested groups towards getting economic research undertaken into the net economic benefits that can be achieved in SA through the introduction of an economic migration program.  This is focused on SA as this is the local economy that I know very well.  The overall plan would be based nationally to eligible jurisdictions.

These are a couple of recent media releases from Nick Xenophon about Nick and Jacqui Lambie introducing a private members bill and some of the work I have been doing with him.

Wow. Just. Wow.

That was my initial reaction when I came upon this article on the ABC News Website last night that apparently prompted the article that was posted on the Migration Alliance blog by my colleague Jerry Gomez:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/federal-court-judge-alexander-street-accused-of-bias/6764704

"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924]. This famous principle actually allows for judicial decisions to be overturned if there is a mere appearance of bias.

With Federal Court Judge Alexander "Sandy" Street accused of ‘apprehended bias’ after having rejected over 252 appeals of the 254 migration cases he considered over a period of six months, applicants are presenting these statistics to show that those seeking a judicial review of migration decisions had virtually no chance of succeeding in Judge Street's court.

Even the editor of the Federal Court Reports, Victor Kline, has apparently sworn an affidavit for the Full Federal Court alleging that Judge Street found in favour of the Immigration Minister in virtually every case he heard between January and June this year, according to a report on the ABC.

“According to the statistics, the judge dismissed a large number of cases at the first court date, which is usually set aside for laying down a timetable for gathering evidence and scheduling a hearing,” noted the ABC report.

Monash University law professor Matthew Groves told the ABC that such analysis of an individual judge's rulings was rarely seen in Australian courts.

Is there any way to avoid the cancellation of a student visa when the visa holder breaches a condition of the visa that requires him to be enrolled in a registered course throughout the duration of the visa?

This was the dilemma that confronted the visa holder in the case of Karki v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor, (2015) FCCA 1940 (20 July 2015). Unfortunately for the visa holder, the breach of the condition led the Department to cancel his student visa in the first instance, and that cancellation was affirmed both by the Migration Review Tribunal (as it was then known) and by the Federal Circuit Court.

However, the decision does highlight some possible “escape routes” that might be relied on by the holders of student visas to preserve their visas against cancellation and thus to maintain their entitlement to remain in Australia to continue with their studies.