Australian Immigration Daily News

It has come to the attention of Migration Alliance that a small number of Registered Migration Agents (RMAs) have been promoting a view that the sky is going to fall in with the removal of 2000+ lawyers out of Registered Migration Agent population of 7000+.  Their predictions include the fact that this is going to cause a catastrophe for vulnerable consumers because every lawyer in Australia is suddenly going to get involved with migration applications.

The concerns of these RMAs seem to stem from the recently taken decision to remove lawyers from the requirement to register as an RMA, and their supervision by the Office of the MARA (OMARA) in line with the recommendations of the Kendall Report (The Deregulation Bill 2019).

These RMAs also seem to think that 60,000 Australian lawyers will be unleashed on the community, and that those lawyers have no training or experience in immigration law.

A case involving subclass 866 applicant saw the AAT remit a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for reconsideration, after finding the applicant was a refugee.

The applicant claimed to fear harm if he returned to his home area in southern Yemen because he was an Orthodox or Coptic Christian and considered an apostate from Islam, after converting. He also claimed to fear harm as a non-indigenous Yemeni and for his anti-government political views, among other things. The applicant’s claims about his religious identity were new claims before the AAT, which he had not previously raised with the Department.

The AAT did not accept the applicant’s claim he was at risk in Yemen because of his political views. His evidence he participated in an anti-government protest rally, which became violent and then led to him being hospitalised, was unconvincing and supported by fraudulent documents.

A case involving subclass 866 visa applicant saw the AAT affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. In this instance, the Tribunal was not satisfied that, on return to Ethiopia, there was a real chance the applicant would face serious harm or a real risk she would face significant harm.

What harm was claimed?

The applicant claimed to fear harm based on her gender, ethnicity, imputed political opinions and former occupation as a journalist, amongst other things.

Recent case before the AAT determined that it was appropriate to set aside a decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Department) refusing to grant the applicant a bridging visa. The Tribunal found there were other reasons for him to stay in the interim and remitted the decision with the direction that his visa not be refused.

The applicant’s visa was refused on character grounds. He had been convicted of possessing a marketable quantity of heroin and served a prison sentence of seven years and nine months and, following his release, was fined for a prescribed concentration of alcohol offence.

When a person’s visa application is refused, they can seek a merits review in the AAT. The AAT is required to consider the matters set out in Ministerial Direction no. 79 (the Ministerial Direction) which include protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia and the expectations of the Australian community (primary considerations). The Tribunal must also consider other factors, such as our international non-refoulement obligation and the strength, nature and length of a person’s ties to Australia (other considerations).

In this particular case, the AAT affirmed a decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Department) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s spouse visa. He was found to not be of good character. 

By way of background, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on character grounds because he had a substantial criminal record and was serving a sentence of imprisonment. This was a mandatory cancellation (under s501) by the Department after the applicant was sentenced to 15 years in prison for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of methamphetamine.

When a person has requested revocation of the cancellation of the visa and that request has been refused by the Department, they can seek a merits review in the AAT of the decision.