Australian Immigration Daily News

This afternoon, Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) provided registered migration agents an update on employer sponsored visas 

Migration Alliance Members might find the following summary useful: 

Peru has joined the list of 22 countries listed in the legislative instrument specifying countries that are eligible to apply for Subclass 462 Work and Holiday Visa.  According to the new instrument, from 1 October 2017, Peruvian nationals will be able to apply for Subclass 462 work and holiday visa provided they have not turned 31 at the time of application, have tertiary qualifications; or successfully completed at least two years of undergraduate university study.  Peru is the latest country to join the 462 Work and Holiday arrangement with Singapore joining the program in August.

 The aim of the Subclass 462 Work and Holiday visa is to provide an opportunity to holiday and work in Australia for up to a year. It is a temporary visa that encourages cultural exchange and closer ties between Australia and eligible partner countries.

Where an applicant obtains a Subclass 462 Work and Holiday visa, they are able to:

What evidence is needed to win a “Schedule 3” case?

Exactly what kinds of circumstances might be considered to provide “compelling” reasons for the Schedule 3 criteria not to be applied, so that an applicant for a Partner visa who does not hold a substantive visa may remain on shore in Australia during the all-too-lengthy period when the application is being assessed?

Unfortunately, there is no definition in the Migration Act or Migration Regulations of the meaning of “compelling”, no objective standard, and no “magic formula” or “recipe of facts” that will drive a conclusion that the circumstances in any case are so persuasive that the power to waive Schedule 3 must be exercised.

Beware, beware, beware, be aware!

So-called “time of application” criteria can be a genuine trap for the unwary, and can cause a visa application to blow up, with dire consequences for the applicants.

A case in point is a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that was recently brought to the writer’s attention by our colleague,  Dr Sirous Ahmadi (as of this date, not reported on Austlii).

Followers of this Website will recall that we have reviewed a number of cases where New Zealand citizens who have lived in Australia since early childhood have had their visas cancelled on character grounds. 

In the majority of those cases, challenges that have been brought against the visa cancellations have not been successful. 

This is what makes a recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in the case of Engi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) (2017) AATA (12 September 2017) unusual and remarkable.