Australian Immigration Daily News

Is there anything that you can do to challenge the opinion of an independent expert concerning whether an applicant for a partner visa has suffered family violence? 

Or does regulation 1.23(10), which requires that the Minister – that is either the Department or the Tribunal – to take the independent expert’s opinion to be correct the “end of the matter”? 

Does this regulation necessarily put a Tribunal decision that is predicated on an independent expert’s opinion that the applicant was not the victim of family violence beyond contest? 

What type of integrity checks are in place to assure that a visa applicant is actually the person who has taken an IELTS test? 

What kind of evidence might the Department or the Tribunal rely upon to determine that an IELTS test result report that is submitted is a “bogus document” and thus trigger the application of Public Interest Criterion 4020 to result in the refusal of the visa application? 

Or to put it another way, how can a person who is attempting to carry out a fraud, by using an “imposter” to take elements of the English language proficiency test for her/him, get “tripped up” so that the fraud comes to light? 

This might come as a bit of a surprise to some of you. For those who don't know me or are new to the profession, my name is Liana Allan and I am the founder of Migration Alliance.

I have had very positive experiences with the Office of the MARA under the new Department of Home Affairs portfolio.

Some of the positive interactions I have had with the Office of the MARA are as follows:

Bondle redefines Messaging 

Bondle announces the introduction of two new features to kick start 2018.  Sandeep Rao, CEO Bondle says “As a leading client engagement platform, we are committed to introducing innovative features that provide an exceptional user experience”. 

The recent product upgrade brings to life, among other enhancements, two features that are unique to the Bondle platform. 

Wow. Just plain wow.

Here’s the story of a decision by the AAT that was so unbelievably bad that it’s hard to believe it could ever have been made. But It was. The decision was so shockingly bad that it is enough to make a reader turn “white as a ghost” from total shock and amazement.

And yet: this decision was not overturned until the case reached the Full Court.