A single source about the status of pieces of legislation, Bills, commencement dates, disallowances, etc
New Direction No 82 replaces Direction No 77: 'the Government considers that [Sponsors awarded Accredited Status] should be able to access streamlined processing arrangements and their applications should be allocated to a decision-maker for initial assessment as a priority'
New Direction No 81 (Order of Consideration – Certain Skilled Migration Visas): replaces Direction No 74; sets the order of processing of applications for visa subclasses 189, 190, 489, 186 and 187; sets the order of processing of nomination applications for visa subclasses 186 and 187
Case Law Updates
Federal Court: does the question "has the applicant been in any previous relationships" in a partner visa application form refer to relationships in general or only to married or de facto relationships? Can decision-makers assume the existence of a previous de facto relationship even if s 5CB is not satisfied? In determining whether information is false, does it matter that, at the time the information was provided, the FCCA had interpreted s 5CB in a way that was subsequently rejected by the FCA?
Federal Court (Full Court): the Minister's visa refusal letter indicating that the applicant could apply to the Tribunal within a timeframe to be calculated by the applicant by reference to the legislative provisions (as opposed to stating the date in absolute terms) was an invalid notification; as a result, a 'late' Tribunal application was not late; this decision means that 'late' Tribunal applications including those from years ago may be reconsidered in certain circumstances
The Federal Court (Full Court) decided whether a Departmental policy is unlawful. The policy deals with the situations in which the Minister should exercise his/her discretion to refuse a citizenship applications under s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The policy deals with children under 16 years old 'applying individually in their own right'.
The practitioner's submission included the following passage: I 'made the misguided decision to rewrite the file notes on plain paper as I firmly believed it was inappropriate to hand in any file notes on Blake Dawson and [sic] Waldron letterhead'. As there was no suggestion that the rewriting involved dishonesty, the Tribunal made a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
'Five IMA detainees, who arrived in Australia before 1 January 2014, were voluntarily removed from Australia. Three IMA detainees who arrived in Australia before 1 January 2014 were involuntarily removed from Australia to their country of origin, consistent with Australia’s obligations'
'Australia's refugee intake will be frozen at current levels for three years under a coalition government'