The new financial year has seen the reopening of the significant investor visa programme but with a new list of eligible investments for foreigners to consider. The tough part with this list is that it may not sit well with what some analyst describe as conservative investors seeking a safe haven to park their funds while waiting on their visa decision.

In an attempt to stop the flow of funds into the Australian property market, the government’s new rules are forcing funds away from government bonds and the property market into high risk investments.

No less than $1.5 million will have to be invested in managed funds or listed investment companies that invest in ASX-listed emerging companies. Part of this requirement is that the managed fund must dedicate at least 80 per cent of its assets to firms with a market capitalisation of less than $500 million.

Of the remainder, at least $500,000 will have to be put in eligible Australian venture capital or private equity funds which invest in start-up and small private companies

And what's left over – up to $3 million – can be invested in a combination of assets, including ASX listed companies, eligible Australian corporate bonds or notes, annuities and real property in Australia. The last is subject to a $300,000 limit on residential housing.

Below is the new Visa Application Charge (VAC) table and corresponding information, which comes into effect today, 1 July 2015.

VAC-increases-fact-sheet-July-2015.pdf

Registered Migration Agents are reporting failures when emailing the Adelaide Skilled Processing Centre, as follows:

"Do be aware emails to ASPC have been failing (rejected) since yesterday. We've tried from both our company mail system and gmail and all being rejected.

The error shows the email address @border.gov.au isn't known to the mail server (the old @immi.gov.au) fails. We're receiving emails from @border.gov.au addresses but can't reply.

The mail system This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >'; document.write(''); document.write(addy_text17917); document.write('<\/a>'); //-->\n This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. : host mr03.border.gov.au[164.97.245.

The following email has been received by Migration Alliance:

Today the Administrative Appeals Tribunal merged with the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT).

Decisions that could be reviewed in the former MRT-RRT are now reviewed in the AAT’s Migration & Refugee Division. Decisions that could be reviewed in the former SSAT are now reviewed in the AAT’s Social Services & Child Support Division. The AAT’s other jurisdictions are dealt with in one of the AAT’s six other Divisions which are the General Division, Freedom of Information Division, National Disability Insurance Scheme Division, Security Division, Taxation & Commercial Division and Veterans’ Appeals Division.

As all RMAs will know, the submission of fraudulent information or material in support of a visa application can have disastrous consequences for the client/visa applicant.  To start with, lodging false or misleading information can cause a visa application to be refused on the grounds that the applicant does not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020. Furthermore, submitting false or misleading information with one application may prevent the person from obtaining another visa for a period of 3 years.  For these reasons, the importance of ensuring that all information that is given to the Department as part of a visa application is completely true and accurate cannot be overstated.

A decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that was handed down earlier this year will be of interest in this regard, as the decision explores the circumstances under which a visa applicant can be held responsible when the applicant’s migration agent is responsible for providing the fraudulent information to the Department.  The case that led the Court to consider this issue was Prodduturri v Minister for immigration and Border Protection FCAFC 5 (29 January 2015).

The facts of the case were that the visa applicant engaged a firm of migration agents to assist him with lodging an application for a “subclass 485” visa for temporary skilled employment with the Department.  The applicant’s instructions to his migration agents were to the effect that they should not file the application for the visa if he was not entitled to it.  The visa applicant then left the preparation of the application entirely in the hands of his agents.  As the Migration Review Tribunal put it in its decision affirming the Department’s ultimate refusal of the application: