Australian Immigration Daily News

Do you agree that Public Interest Criterion 4020, as interpreted by the Full Court in the famous Trivedi case, can sometimes operate to have (brutally) harsh results?

If you have any doubt, consider the case of Ashiq v Minister for Immigration& Anor (2018) FCCA 544 (7 March 2018), most recently updated on Austlii 31 July 2018.

The circumstances in this case were that the applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, originally applied for a student visa in February 2012. 

Implementation of Skilling Australians Fund Levy

Department of Home Affairs has finally implemented a long awaited SAF Levy on 12 August 2018. The following visa subclasses are impacted:

• Subclass 482 TSS
• Subclass 186 ENS
• Subclass 187 RSMS

The levy amount is determined by annual turnover generated by the sponsor. For example, a business with an annual turnover of less than $10M can expect to pay a one-off levy amount of $3000 per ENS or RSMS nomination. In the case of subclass 482 nominations, relevant levy amount for a business with the same turnover is $1200 per year.

 Would you be willing to believe that there are occasions when an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal is sometimes relatively easy?

And that sometimes the Tribunal makes an obvious mistake – one that is so obvious that you have to wonder why the case ever went to final hearing before a judge of the Federal Circuit Court? And why the Minister and his legal representatives did not simply concede that a jurisdictional error had been made, and that the case should be remitted to the Tribunal for “re-determination in accordance with law”?

Just such a case was recently reported on Austlii, Thapa v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2018) FCCA 2182 (10 August 2018).

The instrument repeals IMMI 16/066 (F2016L01198) made under 1.11B of the Regulations and in accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (the AIA).  

Subsection 33(3) of the AIA states that where an Act confers a power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character, the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument.

Source:

This Legislative Instrument repeals IMMI 13/028. IMMI 13/028 operated to specify the temporary skilled migration income threshold for the purposes of paragraph 2.72(10)(cc) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), and the annual earnings for the purposes of subregulation 2.72(10AB) and paragraph 2.79(1A)(b) of the Regulations.

Paragraph 2.72(10)(cc) and subregulation 2.72(10AB) of the Regulations have been repealed by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Skill Shortage Visa and Complementary Reforms) Regulations 2018. As at 18 March 2018, the annual earnings for the purposes of paragraph 2.79(1A)(b) are now specified in the Legislative Instrument IMMI 18/033.

Source:

The instrument: