The following email has been received by Migration Alliance:

The online lodgement system of the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is available 24 hours a day from any computer that has an internet connection.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has upheld a decision by the Minister not to revoke the cancellation of a “Return (Residence)" visa that was held by the national president of the Rebels Motorcycle Club. 

The Full Court made this ruling in Vella v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (2015) FCAFC 53 (21 April 2015).

The significance of this decision is that it clarifies whether principles of “natural justice” require the Minister to disclose information that has been provided under section 503A of the Act by a “gazetted agency” (in other words, a law enforcement or intelligence agency) on condition that the information be treated as “confidential” and that has been relied upon as the basis of a Ministerial decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.

The familiar expression that “timing in life is everything” is used so frequently because it is confirmed by our every-day experience.  But who would think that the truth of this saying would be demonstrated yet again by a decision of the Federal Circuit Court that is “buried” on the Austlii Website? Yet indeed, surprising as this may sound, a recent case, Isanan v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 1397 (29 May 2015) does provide another illustration of how critical timing can be! 

The Isanan case involved the refusal of a Permanent Partner Visa.  The applicant, Ms Isanan, was a Filipino citizen who held a Provisional Partner Visa (subclass 309). Her husband and sponsor died suddenly on the same day that she arrived in Australia. Ms Isanan sought to qualify for a Permanent Partner Visa (subclass 100) on the basis of clause 100.221(3)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations.  

 As will be well known to RMAs, one of the usual requirements for obtaining a Permanent Partner Visa is that at least 2 years must have passed since the application for the Provisional Partner Visa was made (see regulation 100.221(2)(c)). However, clause 100.221(3)(b) provides an exception to this “normal rule”.  Under the clause, an applicant can be eligible for the grant of a Permanent Partner Visa if the sponsoring partner dies after the applicant first enters Australia as the holder of a Provisional Partner visa. 

After apparently 25 years of lobbying the government for a national registration scheme, Engineers Australia (EA) has decided that it will move to ‘self-regulation’ with its own scheme.

Although the federal government sees no need for such national regulation, the Australian Financial Review reports that the move by the EA is “to safeguard the industry against a wave of temporary work visas being issued to fill employment gaps.”

According to EA, currently 14 different Acts and subordinate legislation regulate some engineering services in most states and territories.  Where regulation exists, it is rarely specific to engineering services. Queensland is the only state that requires all engineers to be registered if offering or providing engineering services, and Western Australia is considering introducing similar requirements.  In other states and territories engineers generally operate under a self-regulatory system.

The peak body, which represents about 100,000 engineers, has been urging state and federal governments for the past 25 years to adopt a national registration scheme, which would ensure high professional standards are maintained in the sector.

Engineers Australia (EA) chief executive Stephen Durkin told the AFR that while most government representatives have seen value of a national registration scheme for engineers, the general response has been "but buildings aren't falling down'.

The Federal Circuit Court has held that it is jurisdictional error for the Migration Review Tribunal to accept an opinion of the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth that is not supported by the evidence. The Court has also ruled that it is jurisdictional error for the MRT to refuse to grant an adjournment of proceedings in order to enable the review applicant to obtain information to refute the unsubstantiated or incorrect findings of the Medical Officer.

These findings were handed down in the case of Haque & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 1765 (2 July 2015). The decision is significant for all RMAs who are assisting applicants with appeals to the MRT following the Department’s refusal of a visa due to alleged failure to satisfy the “health criterion” of PIC 4005.

The background of this case was that the “primary applicant” was a citizen of Hungary who was seeking a subclass 886 Skilled Sponsored visa.  The primary applicant had two children, one of whom was a 12-year old girl who was suffering from “autistic spectrum disorder”.