System Message:

Australian Immigration Daily News

Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Posted by on in General

What happens when a client thinks that her or his migration agent has submitted an application for one type of visa, when in reality the migration agent has submitted an application for an entirely different type of visa, and the client is not eligible for the visa that has been applied for?  If the application for the visa is refused, and the refusal is then affirmed by the Migration Review Tribunal, can it be said that the review proceedings before the MRT have been “vitiated” so that the decision by the Tribunal should be “overturned”?

These questions were considered by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in a case that was decided toward the end of last year, Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2014) FCCA 2867 (16 December 2014). The Court answered them by quoting from an earlier judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SZFDE, (2006), in which Justice French made the following observations:

“There are sound policy reasons why a person whose conduct before an administrative tribunal has been affected to her or her detriment, by bad or negligent advice, should not be heard to complain that the detriment was unfair in any sense that would vitiate the decision made”.

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 4392 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
0

Posted by on in General

TAFE NSW has released a 457 visa contributions report on Training Benchmark A and Training Benchmark B.  To read the full report click on the link below:

457_Visa_report---sydney-tafe.pdf

Last modified on
Hits: 4222 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
0

Posted by on in General

By Liana Allan (MARN 0104178) and Kristie Morgan (MARN 1068715)

Regional employers are crying out for workers in regional areas.  Regional Victoria is experiencing a lack of local talent in the following areas:

1. Hospitality - chefs and cooks

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 11702 21 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
4

Posted by on in General

The department of immigration's (DIBP's) website states that the processing period for the non-contributory parent visa is now 30 years. The previous indication was 13 years. Has the quota dropped for this parent visa category or have more people desperately joined the queue in light the of the shock from the government’s attempt to repeal the visa class?

Thirty or 13 years, the wait is too long. Unless families can contribute some $100,000 and get on the contributory parent visa class which has a processing period of under 2 years, family reunions involving parents look virtually impossible.

This issue together with the difficulties faced by migrants in obtaining permanent residency were among the reasons cited for the fall in Australia’s score in the latest assessment of Australia’s performance in resettling migrants according to a report by the global ranking index, MIPEX.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants in all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA.

Developers of the index, use 167 policy indicators to “create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. The index is a tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed.

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 21146 49 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
7

Posted by on in General

The operator of a number of restaurants and cafes in Darwin has been ordered to pay civil penalties of $175,400 for committing multiple breaches of its obligations under the 457 program. These fines were imposed  by Justice Mansfield of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Choong Enterprises Pty Ltd (2015) FCA 390 (27 April 2015).  

Although it does not appear that it is at all common for the Department to take enforcement proceedings against a 457 sponsor (in fact, my review of the Austlii database did not reveal any other cases where such action has been taken!) the Choong  case should nonetheless serve as a reminder to sponsors concerning the importance of complying with their sponsorship obligations.  The case also illustrates the serious financial consequences that can result if a sponsor does not comply.

Further, the result in this case demonstrates that RMAs can very meaningfully assist sponsoring employers by making sure that they are aware of the duties that are imposed on them  under the migration legislation: an RMA’s work is not necessarily completed once a 457 visa has been granted!

...
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 6894 3 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
1
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Bizcover Banner
Migration Amendment for UK Armed Forces Personnel
The Migration Amendment (Status of Forces Agreemen...
Continue Reading...
Cancellation of Registration for Migration Agent for 5 years
The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Au...
Continue Reading...