Australian Immigration Daily News

The Victorian Government’s state nomination program will remain temporarily closed while the State await the Commonwealth Government’s allocation of state nomination places for 2020-21.

In the meantime, applicants will not be able to apply for the following state nomination visas:

• Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (subclass 491) visa
• Skilled Nominated (subclass 190) visa
• Business Innovation stream (subclass 188A) (Provisional) visa
• Investor stream (subclass 188B) (Provisional) visa
• Significant Investor stream (subclass 188C) (Provisional) visa
• Entrepreneur stream (subclass 188E) (Provisional) visa
• Significant Business History  (subclass 132A) (Permanent) visa
• Venture Capital Entrepreneur (subclass 132B) (Permanent) visa

Applicants can still lodge their Expression of Interest (EOI) through the Commonwealth’s Department of Home Affairs SkillSelect system.  An EOI will be required before an applicant can apply for a Victorian visa nomination.

Immigration South Australia has confirmed today that both Business and Skilled Migration program will remain closed until August 2020.

This means that no applications can be made for the following subclasses:

A nationwide study involving 5000 international students has found the majority are experiencing serious wage theft with three in four students earning below the minimum casual wage and one in four earning less than half the minimum.

‘International Students and Wage Theft in Australia’ is the latest report from UTS Law Associate Professor Laurie Berg and UNSW Associate Professor Bassina Farbenblum who co-direct the Migrant Worker Justice Initiative.

It builds on their 2016 national survey of temporary migrant workers. This new study finds that, despite efforts from the Fair Work Ombudsman over the last three years and stronger penalties against employers, it is still ‘business as usual’ in terms of the exploitation of international students.

Source: International-Students-Wage-theft.pdf 

We are delighted to announce that SearchMyANZSCO, the leading migration tool in Australia and New Zealand, is onboard with us and is regarded as the most “user-friendly” platform for all migration agents.

We’d like to bring your focus on the convenience that SearchMyANZSCO provides for your daily tasks such as:

• Occupations Search

Today the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of
Australia. The issue raised by the appeal was whether an invalid certificate purportedly issued by a
delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ("the Minister") under s 473GB of the
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was "new information" within the meaning of s 473DC(1) of the Act. Section
473GB relevantly provides that the Minister may issue a written certificate certifying that certain
information given by the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection ("the
Department") to the Immigration Assessment Authority ("the Authority") as part of the "fast track
review process" established by Pt 7AA of the Act should not be disclosed because it would ground a
claim of public interest immunity by the Commonwealth. Section 473DC(1) relevantly defines "new
information" to mean "documents or information" that "were not before the Minister when the Minister
made the decision [under review]" and that "the Authority considers may be relevant".

The first respondent's application for a protection visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister and this
decision was referred to the Authority for review under Pt 7AA of the Act. The "review material"
provided by a delegate of the Secretary of the Department to the Authority included a "Draft IMAPS
Identity Assessment Form" ("the Identity Assessment Form"). A certificate was purportedly issued
under s 473GB(5) ("the Certificate") certifying for the purpose of s 473GB(1)(a) that disclosure of the
information contained in the Identity Assessment Form would be contrary to the public interest
"because it is a Departmental working document". The Authority affirmed the delegate's decision and
an application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court.

ORDER