Further occupations are available to applicants who meet additional requirements under the Supplementary Skilled List.

190/489 application system closing temporarily
The application system will be closed at 9am on 30 June 2016 and re-opened on 4 July 2016 (any time from 12pm).

Saved applications and applications submitted but no payment made
If you have a saved 190 or 489 state nomination application or an application submitted with no payment made, you will need to submit the application and make payment before 9am (South Australian time) on 30 June 2016.  Otherwise, the application will be deleted.

New applications can be submitted when the revised State Nominated Occupation List is published on 4 July.

ICT occupations – offshore applicants
From 4 July 2016, Immigration SA will require offshore applicants for ICT occupations that appear on the SNOL to have a minimum of 70 points (including state nomination points) on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection points test. This will apply to any occupation involving a skills assessment from the Australian Computer Society (ACS).

The 70 point requirement will be reviewed during July/August and the requirement may be reduced to 65 points and then 60 points depending on the number of applications received. Immigration SA will provide notice of seven (7) calendar days advising of any changes to the points required.

ICT occupations – working in South Australia / South Australian graduate
The 70 points requirement does not apply if you are:

• currently working in a skilled occupation in South Australia; or
• if you are applying under the international graduate of South Australia category.

In these cases, a minimum of 60 points is required (including state nomination points).

489 provisional visa
A small number of occupations appearing on the State Nominated Occupation List and Supplementary Skilled List will only be available for a 489 provisional visa. This will be displayed against the occupation on the relevant list from 4 July 2016. Applicants should ensure that they are aware of the work and residency requirements of this visa.

State nomination requirements
All applications submitted from 4 July 2016 must meet any new requirements published, including English and work experience requirements. For some occupations these requirements have increased

If you or anyone you know is about to lodge a state sponsored visa or

has had a  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 News from South Australia New State Nominated Occupation List appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

Very Important case for Partner visas particularly.

If you or any one you know has applied for or is thinking of applying for or has had a Partner/Spouse visa refused because you were unlawful or did not hold a substantive visa – or were subject to schedule III talk to AR LAW Services and how this Federal Court case may apply to you.

IF YOUR PARTNER VISA HAS BEEN REJECTED EVEN BY THE AAT – call AR LAW Service TODAY for an Appointment – call 96140218 or email  info@arlaw.com.au

Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCAFC 32 (11 March 2016)

The Full Court unanimously held that there is no “temporal” limitation on when the compelling circumstances relied on for a Schedule 3 “waiver” must have existed.

The Court held that the proper interpretation of Subclause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is that compelling circumstances can be considered without regard to when they occurred.

Therefore, the Department and the Tribunal are not confined to considering compelling circumstances that existed at the time that the application was made. Circumstances that have arisen after the application was made can and must be taken into account.

The Full Court held that the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by construing subclause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) to mean that the only matters that could be considered as compelling reasons for not applying Schedule 3 had to be in existence at the time of the lodging of the partner visa application.

Held by Judge Robertson’s view that since the purpose of the Minister’s having discretion not to apply (or to “waive”) Schedule 3 was to give the Minister “greater flexibility if and when compelling circumstances arise and, for example, to avoid hardship to the visa applicant”, it would be inconsistent with that purpose to adopt an interpretation that would limit the circumstances that could be taken into account “to circumstances existing at some past point”.

It was Judge Dowsett’s view that the circumstances which can be relied upon to justify the exercise the discretion not to apply Schedule 3 should not be limited in the absence of “statutory or regulatory requirements”. And neither subclause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) include any requirements which restrict the matters which may be considered as “compelling” only to those which are in existence at the time that the partner visa application is lodged.

The reasons given by Judge Griffiths were as follows:

The power to dispense with, or “to waive”, Schedule 3 requirements, is not itself a “criterion” of Part 820 to Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Therefore, in His Honour’s view, the heading that appears at clause 820.21 that reads: “Criteria to be satisfied at time of application” does not have the effect of confining the decision-maker’s consideration of whether there are compelling circumstances only to matters which are in existence at the time of the application;

The “waiver power” in subclause 8320.211(2)(d)(ii) is expressed in terms that the Minister “is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying” Schedule 3, and that this language implies that the waiver power would be exercised at the “time of decision” as to whether to grant a visa, and thus the matters to be taken into account should extend to matters in existence not just at the time of application, but also at the time of decision;

Since the “waiver power” was intended to alleviate hardship, it was necessary that there be clear words in the text of the legislation and regulations confining the matters that could be considered – and since no such language exists, it is not appropriate to interpret the regulations as limiting the reasons that can be considered to those that exist at the time of application;

The Explanatory Statement to the amendments that introduced clause 820.211(2(d)(ii) do not contain anything which says that the circumstances which are relied on as the basis for seeking a “waiver” of Schedule 3 must exist at the time of the application.

If you or anyone you know has had a partner visa refused either by the department or by the AAT – even if you are now before the Minister – 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 Good News for unlawful visa applicants in love: Schedule III Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCAFC 32 (11 March 2016) appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

Ms Le had been born in Vietnam in 1956, arrived in Australia as a refugee in 1984. While in Australia, she was convicted of numerous matters involving a series of convictions for dealing heroin. These included: 1) an original conviction in 1997 for supplying and possessing heroin which resulted in a prison sentence of 4 years; 2) a second conviction in 2000 for trafficking in “significant quantities of dangerous drugs” which resulted in a second prison sentence of 8 years; and 3) a third offence, in 2007, again for trafficking in dangerous drugs, which resulted in another prison sentence of 8 years. On her third conviction her visa was cancellation by the Minister.

The Minister found the “countervailing considerations” against visa cancellation – including Ms Le’s longstanding residence in Australia, the impact of cancellation of her visa on her husband and the best interests of her 8 grandchildren in having her remain in Australia – did not outweigh her significant criminal record.

Judge Logan found that the Minister’s decision to cancel the visa based on Ms Le’s criminal record was not “unreasonable” (and thus not affected by jurisdictional error on that basis) the grounds that it was “disproportionate”, or a decision which “no reasonable decision-maker would make”.

Rather, Judge Logan found that the legal error that had been made by the Minister was in concluding that he did not have to consider Australia’s non-refoulement obligations because Ms Le had made no claims concerning these obligations in the submissions she had made concerning the Minister’s proposed cancellation of her visa.

His Honor held that although Ms Le was not required to raise the question of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in her submissions to the Minister, because she had previously acquired the status of a refugee, the Minister was legally obligated to consider whether the visa cancellation would be contrary to the anti-refoulement provisions of the Refugees Convention.  In order to reach a conclusion on that question, the Minister would have had, at least, to have conducted an analysis to determine whether Ms Le still retained “refugee status” (it was possible that she could have lost her refugee status by committing a “particularly serious crime”.

Implicit in Judge Logan’s decision is that the Minister was under an obligation to take Australia’s anti-refoulement obligations into account even though these obligations had previously been considered in connection with prior visa cancellation decisions.

If you or anyone you know is subject to cancellation on character grounds or is applying for a visa or if you have had a  visa refused on character grounds or any other reason 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 see if you qualify for a free initial 30 Minute general information consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)
For more go to http://www.arlaw.com.au/disclaimer/
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 Federal Court – a ray of hope for character visa cancellation appellants – in certain cases. appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

Haque & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 1765 (2 July 2015) Is a Federal Circuit Court case regarding the Public Interest Health Criterion 4005.

Haque held, if an assessing Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) has refused your visa without referring to evidence, there maybe grounds to deem such a refusal void. The Haque decision may have far reaching consequences in cases where the MOC has not relied upon evidence to substantiate it’s findings against a visa applicant.

The post Federal Circuit Court Haque & Ors Case appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.