One might observe rather flippantly that compiling a record of minor driving offences is a “rite of passage” for Australians! Or perhaps that “getting caught” for relatively minor offences is something that happens to most people who drive a car, sooner or later. 

Whatever the case, a decision that was handed down earlier this week by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Bhownik and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  (2015) AATA 426 (17 June 2015) – demonstrates that relatively minor driving offences are not enough to prevent a person from gaining Australian citizenship if they are otherwise a person of good character.

On the other hand, a second decision, delivered by the AAT just last week, Brown and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) AATA 414 (12 June 2015), shows that having a really horrible driving record combined with a history of other serious criminal offences may well pose difficulties – even when the applicant for citizenship has lived in Australia since early childhood.

China and Australia have signed a Free Trade Agreement (CHAFTA) this week which mainly aims to increase market access to China for Australian resources, beef and wine exporters as well as services providers while boosting access of Chinese carmakers and electronics producers to the Australian market.

Prime minister, Tony Abbott told the media that the agreement would give each nation unprecedented access to each other’s markets: “It means duty-free entry for 99.9% of our resources, energy and manufacturing exports within four years...Australian services providers, financial, education, health and aged care will have new access to China’s services sector…Australian consumers will pay less for cars, for clothes, for electronics and other goods imported from China,” said Mr Abbot.

The CHAFTA is also set to allow more Chinese workers including tradespeople to work in Australia on temporary skilled migration visas.

According to an ABC report, in the fine print of the agreement the entry and temporary stay for up to four years with the possibility of staying longer will be granted to "contractual service suppliers" from China.

The agreement defines such suppliers as a Chinese person "who has trade, technical or professional skills and experience and who is assessed as having the necessary qualifications, skills and work experience accepted as meeting Australia's standards".

Two recent decisions of the Federal Circuit Court have once again confirmed that regulations which specify the time when a test to demonstrate English language proficiency must be taken can be strictly enforced.

In each of these cases, Mundi v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 1412 (26 May 2015) and Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 1533 (5 June 2015), the Court held that it did not amount to “jurisdictional error” for the Migration Review Tribunal to affirm Departmental refusals of visa applications even in circumstances where the applicant is able to produce test results at the time of the hearing before the MRT to demonstrate that she/he has, as a matter of fact, the level of English language proficiency that is required by the relevant regulations.

It may appear at first blush that these decisions are "unfair" and elevate “form over substance” and that a person who can show that she/he has the necessary level of competency in English at the time that a visa application is determined by the MRT should be able to qualify for the visa. 

It's time to review post study work arrangements in Australia as the US Senate considers a proposal to extend post-study work rights in the US to up to six years for science-based international students. If the Senate approves the proposal, then Australia’s ability to attract quality students could be devastated, according to a report in The Australian.

International student numbers are at a high in Australia with the low Australian dollar and the streamlined visa processing system. But post study work arrangements for students remain limited and could become a key difference to students shopping for an overseas education.

If approved, the US plans would allow students with science, technology, engineering and maths degrees to stay in the US for three years if they hold a bachelors degree and another three years if they have a postgraduate qualification.

“If this policy takes off, it will seriously hinder and even undermine Australia’s capacity to recruit good quality student,” Phil Honeywood, executive director of the International Education Association of Australia told The Australian.

“Every time Australia thinks it’s hit the sweet spot on international education enrolments something unexpected seems to happen. No one would have thought the sleeping giant of the (US) market would have awakened so quickly to its potential.”

The Federal Circuit Court has ruled that applicants for student visas who intend to rely on bank loans to pay for their living and school costs do not need to provide evidence that they have had regular income sufficient to accumulate the loan funds.  

Although the decision – Saji v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA (7 May 2015) - was handed down in the context of an appeal against the refusal of an application for a subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector) student visa, it has broad applicability to other types of student visas for which evidence of the availability of funds to meet these expenses is also required (e.g. subclass 570 (Independent ELICOS Sector); subclass 571 (Schools Sector); subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector), etc.

If this case is a representative example of the administrative practices that the Department has been following, and the Department has in fact routinely been requiring student visa applicants who are planning to finance their costs through bank loans to show that they have had regular income to accumulate funds in the amount of the loans – then the Department has been misinterpreting and misapplying the regulations!