Australian Immigration Daily News

How do you know if the Federal Circuit Court has properly considered your case?

This is an extremely important question for visa applicants who have sought to challenge of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which have affirmed the refusal of their visa applications.

It is surely true that the vast majority of visa applicants who take their cases to the Federal Circuit Court are not represented by lawyers – either due to lack of money to pay a lawyer, or apprehension that it will be extremely expensive to have a lawyer appear for them (in reality, the costs of getting legal representation in a migration matter are likely significantly less than for other types of litigation in Australia, as migration cases are generally dealt with in a “half-day hearing” ).

Is the Migration Act consistent with the expectations of a democratic society?

For example, it is consistent with the concept of the presumption of innocence?

Or does the Act incorporate some “authoritarian” features that may be considered to give the “Executive” – those administering the Act - disproportionate and excessive power to unfairly curtail the rights of visa holders?

Bondle, the client engagement tool that’s helping migration agents across Australia, just released another update to their product incorporating process templates. Before I write any further, I am really excited to share with the members of Migration Alliance that I have secured a special offer from Sandeep Rao, the CEO of Bondle Australia. As part of our existing partnership, Bondle is extending 6 months free access to the PRO license of the product, if you sign up (https://getbondle.com/solutions/migration-agents/) before 1 May 2018. 

When I first heard about Bondle, it seemed like an interesting solution meant to exchange messages and documents. However, over the past few months the product has evolved so rapidly that I wanted to pen this article on how far ahead they are on the innovation curve compared to the other offerings we have in the market.   

For a long time, our industry had very little choice when it came to business software. It was either Migration Manager of Officio – both of which now seem like tools from the stone age that work on specific platforms or with no mobile capability. With Bondle, we get a user-friendly tool for on your computer browser or mobile phone, making it work for you whether you’re a Windows or Mac user. The new entrant, Immisys claims to be the only truly cloud based (which it isn’t) and purposely designed for Australian immigration and education industry.  I think we would all hesitate to use an “Australian Google” or a “Facebook made for Australia”.  Today, it’s all about global reach and the ability to scale so as to price competitively.  

Life is full of surprises! 

As well as unexpected twists and turns! 

And surprising outcomes! 

Imagine for a moment that you are acting for parties to an application for a prospective marriage visa. 

Imagine also that notwithstanding the submission of various documentary evidence in support of the application, such as photographs, statutory declarations and a letter of support from a marriage celebrant, the Department's reviewing officer is not satisfied that the sponsor and the applicant genuinely intend to live together as spouses, and therefore proceeds to refuse the prospective marriage visa application. 

Imagine further that an application for merits review is taken to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal also arrives at a finding that the sponsor and the applicant do not have a genuine intention to live together as spouses. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal refers to a) inconsistencies in the evidence concerning whether the sponsor has sent money to the applicant to assist him with his living costs; b) evidence that at an interview in relation to a previous prospective marriage visa application, the applicant was unable to give accurate details about the ages of the sponsor's children or about her life in Australia; c) inconsistencies in the evidence concerning whether the visa applicant had met the applicant's friends; d) inconsistencies in the evidence concerning where the applicant had stayed during her visits to the country where the applicant lived.