In a scathing judgement against a ministerial decision to deport New Zealander, Mas Eden, the Federal Court effectively accused Assistant Immigration Minister Michaelia Cash of being ‘oppressive and unreasonable’.

Justice John Logan accused the minister of using “a sledgehammer to crack a nut” in the ministers  ill-fated attempt to deport Iranian-born New Zealand citizen Mas Eden and ordered the government to release Mr Eden and pay legal costs, according to a report in The Australian.

In 2011, Mr Eden had pleaded guilty to the indecent assault of a passenger in the taxi he was driving in Brisbane two years earlier. A District Court judge then sentenced Mr Eden to 12 months’ jail — wholly suspended for two years — remarking that “actions can often be misinterpreted and I think this is probably a case like that”.

While Mr Eden committed no offence in the ensuing two years, and quit working as a taxi driver, the Australian Federal Police alerted the Immigration Department to his conviction in January last year.

In April this year, Senator Cash cancelled Mr Eden’s visa on character grounds, ordering that he be sent back to New Zealand. Immigration officers went to Mr Eden’s southeast Queensland home early one morning, detaining him in front of his wife and five-year-old son.

Is there a difference between being given an opportunity to “comment” on adverse information at a merits review hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly the Migration Review Tribunal) and being given the opportunity to “respond” to that information? 

And if there is a difference, what difference does it make? 

Judge Cameron of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was called upon to answer these questions in the case of Shrivastava v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 483 (10 March 2015). 

A small group of infographics and data visualisation experts in Sydney have put together an interactive map using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data to show the Australian suburbs where new migrants from various countries congregate.

The company, Small Multiples explained that it created this project to reveal the birthplaces of the biggest immigrant populations in suburbs and towns across Australia.

It’s important to note this as these maps do not show the actual breakdown of the population by the country of birth. For such details you will have to refer to the ABS census page.

The graphics in the tool colour codes suburbs according to the largest number of overseas born residents living in the suburb using that ABS census data from 2011.

However, the colour coding has a dramatic and intended effect of suggesting that large sections of major cities are dominated by migrants from certain countries when in reality they account for a small percentage of the suburbs population.

Take West Melbourne for instance. There are over 1800 Australian born residents. Of the overseas born in the suburb, China ranked the top country with 200 or about 5% of the population. The infographics colour codes West Melbourne red, the key indicating that the largest number of overseas born people in the suburb were born in China.

In an article that I posted last week, I reviewed a decision of the Federal Circuit Court which involved the “genuine temporary entrant” requirement for student visa applicants. In that case, Khanna & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 1971 (20 July 2015), the Court held that an applicant can satisfy the requirement to be a genuine temporary entrant even if they have a desire or wish to remain in Australia following the completion of their studies if a viable pathway should become available.

In other words, according to the decision in Khanna, a person can have “dual “or “overlapping” intentions 1) to return to their home country at the end of their course of studies if there is no further visa option; and 2) to remain in Australia if the further visa option can be realized – and holding these two intentions does not disqualify a person from being characterized as a “genuine temporary entrant”.

Interestingly enough, the “genuine temporary entrant” criterion was put to the test in a different context in another case that was decided by the Federal Circuit Court in May 2015. And again, in this earlier case – Jung v Minister for Immigration &  Anor, (2015) FCCA 1096 (4 May 2015), it was found that a person can simultaneously hold seemingly “inconsistent” or “contradictory” intentions with respect to remaining in Australia and yet nonetheless meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

In the last three years some 750 partner visas were cancelled. This number is set to rise with the launch of data-matching program by the departments of immigration and human services.

Immigration and Human Services combined their respective customer databases to help uncover various types of fraud including those by couples who have lodged or been granted partner visas.

The system aims at identifying those taking welfare payments as singles, despite sponsoring overseas partners and will be looking at grants and applications from the years starting from 2012. DIBP granted 47,752 partner visas in the program year ending 2014.The biggest source nations were China, India, Britain, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

These grants and other applications are now being checked against roughly seven million unique records in the Centrelink database.

According to figures reported in the Herald Sun, in the last three years about 750 such visas have been cancelled for breaches of conditions, such as making bogus claims, providing incorrect information, and being of bad character.