In a recent post, we discussed a case in which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concluded that an applicant’s failure to truthfully disclose his record of criminal convictions in New Zealand (on his "incoming passenger cards") was a sufficient grounds to disqualify him from Australian citizenship - FBMR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (2015) AATA 116 (2 March 2015). The AAT arrived at this determination even though none of the offences committed by the applicant had occurred in Australia – however, before his arrival the applicant had compiled a fairly impressive criminal record in New Zealand, that, as recounted in the AAT’s decision, included convictions for offences such as burglary, theft, possession and cultivation of drugs, unlawful possession of a firearm and serious traffic offences.  While most of these offences had been committed a number of years before the application for citizenship was made, it was the failure to disclose the offences, rather than the offences themselves, that ultimately led the AAT to find that the applicant was not a person of “good character” and thus affirm the Department’s refusal of his application. (One might perhaps wonder why the applicant's actual criminal history itself was not accorded greater weight!)

By way of comparison, I now take up another recent case – Hasib v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) AATA 82 (13 February 2015) – where the AAT reached the opposite result, and found that an applicant’s criminal record involving 10 incidents of credit card fraud, committed in Australia, did not disqualify him from Australian citizenship.

The applicant in this case had what might be described as a “rocky” history following his initial arrival in Australia from Bangladesh on a student visa.  The applicant first came to Australia in December 2003. In March 2006, his student visa was cancelled on “non-compliance grounds” involving the failure to satisfy attendance requirements of his course.  The cancellation of the student visa was affirmed by the MRT. The applicant then remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen for a period of approximately one year, when he was granted a protection visa.

The DIBP's Visa and Citizenship Helpdesk will be deploying some changes to the ImmiAccount support pages on their website on Monday. This will also include a new enquiry form for agents/clients experiencing problems with ImmiAccount (with the existing one on the agent gateway to be removed).

DIBP will send Migration Alliance some formal communications on Monday so that we can distribute these to our members.  This will be once the DIBP have confirmed the form is live and working effectively in production.   The DIBP have sent Migration Alliance an email giving us the heads up so we know to expect their email on Monday.

RMAs need to be aware that there is a discrepancy on the DIBP website regarding information DIBP have posted online.  This information has just been provided to us from a member RMA.

Certain occupations are incorrect and could cause confusion for some visa applicants.

For example, if you search for FITNESS CENTRE MANAGER on the DIBP website, it will take you to the following link:

Hundreds of foreign workers employed in Australia’s $200 billion offshore oil and gas sector have had their work arrangements deemed invalid by the Federal Court in a ruling delivered yesterday.

In 2014, the Assistant Minister for Immigration, Senator Michaelia Cash changed visa regulations to override the Senate and to make it easier to employ overseas workers on offshore oil and gas projects. Her ministerial directions were quickly challenged by the Maritime Union who having lost in their first court action, appealed to the Federal Court which, yesterday, overturned the initial ruling.

A three-judge panel has allowed the appeal and agreed that the legislation could not be used in the way that it had been.

It said the determination by Assistant Immigration Minister Michaelia Cash "is not authorised ... and is invalid."

The judgment read:

After receiving multitudes of complaints from MA members and RMAs about ME Alliance being too similar to, and/or passing off as Migration Alliance, we have been in contact with the Office of the MARA.  Their advice is as follows:

"....should a person, including a registered migration agent, have a concern about the actions or behaviour of an agent, the most appropriate course of action would be for each of these agents to lodge a complaint through the OMARA websiteor speak directly to one of our staff.  The complaints process enables the OMARA to appropriately consider complaints lodged in a transparent manner."  

Please assist Migration Alliance to stop ME Alliance (Migration and Education Alliance) from passing off as Migration Alliance.    Please lodge a complaint to the Office of the MARA citing parts 1.10(ia) of the Code of Conduct, 1.11 of the Code of Conduct, and 4.5 of the Code of Conduct if you are: