Giving immigration assistance without registration

It is commonly said that the giving of immigration assistance by a person who is not an RMA makes that person liable for imprisonment, with exceptions. That is not an accurate statement. Unregistered assistance itself does not lead to imprisonment. What can lead to imprisonment is something else, as we explain.

Change of circumstance: when does obligation to notify end?

It is common sense that visa applicants must notify the Department as soon as practicable of changes of circumstances that occur before visa grant. But does the obligation to notify apply to changes that occur after grant? If not, are there good reasons to notify the Department of changes of address or email address anyway?

Unlawful non-citizen necessarily s 48 barred?

Common mistake: "An unlawful non-citizen is necessarily barred under s 48 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) from making an application for most visa classes while in the migration zone". With respect, we explain why that assertion is wrong.

Can Ministerial directions be challenged?

If the Minister issues a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), are those directions binding on them? Are there circumstances where those persons or bodies are not required to comply with certain aspects of a Ministerial direction?

Child born in Australia “inherits” both parents’ visas?

If a child is born a non-citizen in Australia and, at the time of birth, one the parents holds a visa of a given subclass and the other parent holds a visa of another subclass, does the child "inherit" any of those 2 visas? If so, does the child inherit the most beneficial visa? Can the child "inherit" and hold both visas at the same time? Are there circumstances where the child will "inherit" no visa at all and will be born an unlawful non-citizen, despite the fact that the parents hold a visa? The answers might be surprising.

“where you suspect fraudulent practices by nominators or migration agents”

We have recently received a copy of an electronic, unclassified newsletter published by the Department of Home Affairs for Regional Certifying Bodies (RCBs), which includes the following passage: "RCB officers can use the ESPM mailbox to raise issues requiring clarification and to copy us into your email to the RCB Advice mailbox in cases where you suspect fraudulent practices by nominators or migration agents".

“Regional Australia” replaced by “regional areas”

"The purpose of the instrument is to amend IMMI 18/037 to remove references to “regional Australia” as defined under subregulation 5.19(16) of the Regulations. As part of the package introducing new regional visas, a new instrument ... specifies the parts of Australia that are regional Australia under subregulation 5.19(16) of the Regulations. Amending IMMI 18/037 to remove references to regional Australia ensures two instruments that specify regional Australia for the purposes of subregulation 5.19(16) do not operate concurrently".

Incorrect information relating to previous visas

It is common sense that the cancellation power under s 109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) can be used where a visa holder gave incorrect information for the purposes of the application for the visa currently held. But can a person's visa be cancelled under s 109 by reason of the giving of incorrect information for the purposes of an application for a visa previously held?

TSS: simplifying salary requirements

Generally, salary requirements for a TSS nomination have 3 limbs: 1) annual market salary rate (AMSR), excluding non-monetary benefits, must be at least $53,900; 2) nominee's annual earnings must be at least the AMSR. 3) annual earnings, excluding non-monetary benefits, must be at least $53,900. But if annual earnings are at least the AMSR (limb 2) and the AMSR, excluding non-monetary benefit, is at least $53,900 (limb 1), is it not the case that the annual earnings, excluding non-monetary benefits, will necessarily be at least $53,900, thus rendering limb 3 redundant? Not really, as we explain.

New legislative instrument on various visas

The new legislative instrument: increases the VAC for some visas; expands the group benefitting from transitional arrangements related to the closure of subclass 187; adds one of the new regional visas to the visas for which, unless there are compelling and compassionate circumstances, the Minister must be satisfied that an applicant claiming to be in a de facto relationship has been in that relationship for at least 12 months at time of application; ensures that eligible family members can join an application for one of the new regional visas after it is made and before it is decided.

Copyrighted Image

error: Content is protected !!