About three years ago a woman approached me to seeking advice regarding an appeal for a small boy who she was “sort of a mother to”.

She was a well spoken profession Australian Citizen and had seen many lawyers in the last few months – among them some of Australia’s leading law firms, all had told her the case had little prospect of succeeding.

The little child had arrived in Australia on a visa “they got somehow” when the child was about ones years old and ever since the department was trying to ‘deport” the child.

An application for protection (a refugee visa) had later been filed.

That application had been refused.

An appeal to the AAT had then been filed.

It is at this time I and AR LAW Services where approached.

On review of the matter I discovered that the child belonged to a small group of indigenous tribal people that due to ethic and religious reasons were subject to persecution.

The child – an orphan – was extremely traumatized due to the horrendous ordeals suffer in such a short life.

So obviously we required a full psychological assessment.

Additionally and simultaneously the Family Court was persuaded to award ‘custody” of the child to the woman  “sort of the child’s mother”.

All of this was woven together and presented to the tribunal.

After many submission and appearances at the AAT the Deputy Member agreed with me and we won.

The little child who had faced a truly bleak future: despised cast-out and persecuted, had with one decision of the AAT been saved.  The future now was indeed bright and bristled with the opportunities that a life in Australia held.

So if you or anyone you know has had a visa refused or cancelled and have been told it is a ‘hopeless” or difficult case make an appointment with a Master Migration Lawyer.

Book a Consultation

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to   www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post Another “David and Goliath” refugee case won by AR LAW Services at the AAT. appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

The post AR LAW Services – Best Immigration Lawyer, Federal Court, Administrative Appeals Tribunal: what clients have said about AR LAW Services appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

If you are a person holding an Australian visa you now will automatically fails the ‘character test’ if you have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for one or more offences. Conviction for the commission of a single, but more severe, criminal offence alone may be sufficient grounds for the Australian government to cancel your visa, or repeated convictions for less sever criminal offences can also lead to the cancellation of your visa. There are also various other considerations which the DIBP will look at to determine if it considers you to be of bad character and therefore, move to cancel your visa.

Consequently what maybe considered a “good deal’  for an Australian Citizen when negotiating a criminal “plea bargain” maybe a very bad deal for a visa holding foreign national.

That is where AR LAW Services may help, given we not only deal with migration and visa law but also we have almost 20 years experience in assisting people in police and criminal defense law.

So if you or someone you know is facing criminal or police matters or has had a visa refused or cancelled by s501  talk to us.

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post Trouble with the Law? Why foreign nationals need special help when it comes to police matters appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

The case was about a review of an application for a student visa. As noted by MikeArch the application was refused for adequacy of funds to meet living and tuition costs.

What happened in this case was that there was an exchange during the hearing between the applicant and the Tribunal member concerning the bank statements that the applicant sought to rely upon to demonstrate to the member that he did in fact satisfy requirements concerning the adequacy of funds. After the hearing, the applicant sent a copy of a further bank statement to the Tribunal.  On receiving this second bank statement, the Tribunal member issued a decision in which he stated that:

“The applicant’s response (concerning whether he satisfied financial capacity requirements) has been to submit a bank statement without comment. There is no apparent evidence from that statement or any other source that the Applicant had access to those funds or that he now has access to funds for the purposes of undertaking further study. The Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant has had sufficient time and opportunity to provide the evidence required from him regarding his ability to satisfy the financial requirements and it finds that he has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate that he does satisfy those requirements.”

What happened:

The first indication, as reflected in Justice Neville’s judgment, was that the Tribunal’s decision was “very short”.  Justice Neville observed that the Tribunal’s decision ran to only 18 paragraphs.  His Honour stated that:

“In such short compass, it is difficult to see how the Tribunal carried out its statutory function to weigh evidence and give due consideration to it against the claims made by the Applicant”.

Here,  His Honor concluded that the Tribunal did not “weigh” the evidence that the applicant had given at the hearing concerning his bank statement, or the evidence of the second bank statement that was provided following the hearing. It was Justice Neville’s finding that what the Tribunal had done was to simply reject the second bank statement that was provided after the hearing as a “document provided without comment” and that it then declared that the applicant had had a sufficient opportunity to submit the financial information.  Justice Neville described the Tribunal’s assessment as being merely a “blanket dismissal” of the financial information that the applicant had sought to provide, and that there had been no “weighing” process at all by the Tribunal.

So if the Tribunal gives a very short determination, and doesn’t seem to show that it has gone through a process of carefully “weighing” or evaluating the applicant’s claims, then that may be at least a starting point for considering that the Tribunal has not carried out a proper review, and that maybe grounds to consider taking the case to the Federal Circuit Court.

If you or anyone you know has had a visa refused or an AAT Appeal rejected particularly a student visa matter please speak to one of the lawyers at our office for thorough advice on your options.

Call   03 9614 0218 or email         info@arlaw.com.au

to arrange a free initial 30 Minute consultation for general advice at our Melbourne office.

For more go to www.arlaw.com.au
Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post Appeal Failed? Read this: Fed Court decision; Short not so sweet! appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

Understanding genuineness

In the interim, to streamline nomination processing, agents should still make sure that they are familiar with the current PAM guidance on genuineness and that they provide adequate supporting evidence when lodging a nomination application.  As indicated in the PAM, in most cases case officers will consider this requirement met based on certifications made in the nomination application. They will, however, assess further whether they are satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine if they have concerns that:

a) the nominated position appears to have been created for the purpose of facilitating entry to, or remaining in, Australia;
b)  the tasks to be performed by the nominee do not appear to be consistent with the nominated occupation; or

c) the nominated occupation does not appear to be consistent with the nature of the sponsor’s business.

If you or anyone you know has had a SPONSORSHIP or Nomination application for 457 visa refused or cancelled please speak to one of the lawyers at our office for thorough advice on your options.

Similarly:

If you or anyone you know has had a 457 visa refused or cancelled please speak to one of the lawyers at our office for thorough advice on your options.

Call   03 9614 0218 or email         info@arlaw.com.au

to arrange a free initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office.

For more go to www.arlaw.com.au
Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post 457 visa “genuineness” a word from DIAC appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

Two rulings by Judge Street, who is from one of Australia’s most famous legal families, have been subject to appeals and in the Full Federal Court, which has criticized him, the ABC reported yesterday.

Applicants have presented statistics to show that migration decisions had virtually no chance of success within the six month period this year.  Of 254 rulings, the statistics showed that 252 appeals were rejected, ruling in favour of the immigration minister on nearly every case.

Judge Street has already been the subject of such criticism when two appeals against his decisions denying litigant procedural fairness were successful.

The Street family has produced three NSW chief justices, Judge Street’s father, Sir Laurence Street, served as chief justice between 1974 and 1988.

According to the ABC, Judge Streets appointment into the Federal Circuit Court judiciary attracted media attention when it was revealed that he faced possible bankruptcy and was in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

The eight judges on the Federal Circuit Court in Sydney delivered 357 cases between them from January to June this year, while Judge Street delivered 286 cases himself, within the same period.

If you or anyone you know has had a visa refused or cancelled you should talk to AR LAW Services.

AR LAW Services: Masters of Migration & Visa Law is expert in all visa applications and visa appeals, whether it is an appeal to the AAT, the MRT, the RRT or Federal or High Court call AR LAW Services on 03 96140218 or email  info@arlaw.com.au to arrange a Free initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office to discuss you visa or visa appeal options.

See our web page for more  http://www.arlaw.com.au/australian-migration-visa-services/australian-visa-appeals/

The post Visa Appeals. Federal Court judge accused of bias appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.