Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
Migration Alliance has received the following email update from the NSW government, "Live and Work in NSW":
The NSW Government’s limited number of interim nomination places for the 2020–21 financial year have been exhausted.
We are currently awaiting confirmation of an additional allocation of places from the Home Affairs for the remainder of the financial year.
...
According to the latest data available via the SkillSelect Dashboard, there are 710 Expressions of Interest applications pending for the State of South Australia for 132 Significant Business History and 132 Venture Capital Entrepreneur Business Visas.
Whilst the State continues to operate on interim allocations, this is a timely reminder for existing and new 132 visa holders to ensure they adhere to the State’s strict monitoring and compliance rules.
Business migrants seeking nomination for a Business Talent subclass 132 visa must meet both state and Department of Home Affairs requirements. State and Australian Government requirements are different for each stream.
...
These amendments are inserted by Schedule 1 and Division 3 of Schedule 5 to the Amendment Regulations.
The Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program consists of two visa Subclasses, the Working Holiday (Subclass 417) visa and the Work and Holiday (Subclass 462) visa (WHM visas). The key differences between the two visas are that Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa arrangements generally have caps on the number of visas granted annually (except for the United States of America) and may include additional eligibility requirements such as a minimum education level, English language proficiency or letters of support from a partner country Government. Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa arrangements are uncapped with no limit on the annual number of visa grants.
Source: HA-LA-Measures-2-Reg-2020.pdf and HA-LA-Measures-2-Reg-2020-Explanatory-Memorandum.pdf
As our readers may be aware, the Department of Home Affairs announced an additional step for TSS nominations, requiring employers to utilise an additional platform “jobactive” to satisfy Labour Market Testing component of the nomination application. Whilst the introduction of this additional requirement was not applied retrospectively, the requirement is applicable to all nominations lodged on or after 1 October 2020.
What is jobactive?
According the to the website (https://jobsearch.gov.au/), the platform allows employers as well as job seekers to digitally connect. Employers are able to browse through eligible candidates and job seekers are able to view available jobs. The service is free to both employers as well as job seekers.
...
| BJO18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 189 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Murphy, O'Callaghan & Snaden JJ Migration law - Minister's delegate refused to grant appellant a Temporary Protection (Class XD) (subclass 785) visa - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed delegate's decision - Judge Mercuri of Federal Circuit Court dismissed judicial review application - whether erroneous failure to find Authority engaged in 'irrational or illogical reasoning' in findings concerning credibility of appellant - 'high degree of caution' required before finding jurisdictional arising from 'adverse credit findings' - whether erroneous failure to undertake 'appropriate predictive exercise' in making decision whether there was 'real chance' appellant would 'suffer serious harm if returned to Pakistan' - whether inadequacy of reasons - held: appeal dismissed. BJO18 |
| CJE19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1620 Federal Court of Australia Beach J Migration law - Minister's delegate refused to grant appellant a Temporary Protection visa - Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed delegate's decision - Judge Street of Federal Circuit Court dismissed judicial review application - whether Authority's finding that appellant 'would return to Karbala' irrational - whether finding 'inconsistent with other findings' - whether finding reached without properly considering applicant's reasons for relocation - whether failure to give 'proper contextual consideration' to appellant's evidence - whether 'illogicality or irrationality' - whether Authority unreasonable in failing 'to exercise or consider exercising' power under s473DC(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 'to interview or get new information from' appellant concerning place he would return to - held: Authority unreasonably failed to consider exercising power under s473DC(3) Migration Act, or alternatively failed to exercise it - failure was material - appeal allowed. CJE19 |
Source: Benchmark
Login / Join
