|
Registered Migration
Agents |
|||||
www.parishpatience.com.au/immigration/
|
||||||
| Issue No 21 | May 2000 | |||||
Regulation Changes from 1 July |
||||||
|
||||||
Sponsored visitor visas from 1 JulyThe government has moved on an announcement made in December last year that it would introduce a plan to allow people who would otherwise "experience difficulties in establishing their bona fides" as genuine business or family visitors to be sponsored by someone in Australia who would put up a bond to guarantee the visitor would not overstay. From 1 July 2000, two new, highly restrictive visitor visa subclasses will be available. They will be known as "Sponsored Business Visitor" (subclass 459) and "Sponsored Family Visitor" (subclass 679). Both subclasses are described as "short stay". Applicants for the business subclass 459 must be sponsored by a Federal, State or Territory member of Parliament, by a person holding the office of mayor, or by a Commonwealth, State or Territory government agency or instrumentality. Criteria similar to the current subclass 456 Business visitor visa must be satisfied. Applicants for the family subclass 679 must be sponsored either by a member of Parliament, mayor, agency or instrumentality as above, or by a relative. The relative must be one of the following:
In all cases, the sponsor must be at least 18 years old and must be a "settled" Australian citizen or a "settled" Australian permanent resident. The term "settled" is interpreted by the Department to mean the person must have been living in Australia for the past two years. Most New Zealanders living in Australia (unless they are Australian citizens) are excluded from being sponsors, as are same-sex partners. The visas are valid for a single entry and stay of no more than three months. They are also subject to a "no further stay" condition, which means that they cannot be extended and no other type of visa can be applied for after arrival, other than a protection (refugee) visa. In all cases, the Department can require that a sum of money be deposited as a security to ensure that the visitor complies with the conditions of the visa. It is up to the Department to determine how large a sum is required, and the money must be deposited with the Commonwealth Bank before the visa is granted. Besides losing the deposit, the sponsor will be banned from sponsoring again for five years if the visitor breaches conditions. Other changes from 1 JulyA number of other changes coming into effect on 1 July were gazetted at the end of April. These include:
Migration Amendment Regulations 2000 (No. 2) - http://frli.law.gov.au/frli/TOC/TOCnew.html#2000B00065
Regulations on notification dates invalidOne of the features of Australia's immigration laws for many years has been the use of a rigid set of rules for calculating how long a person has to appeal against an adverse decision. In calculating these time limits, equally rigid rules have been used to work out when a person is "deemed" by law to have received notification of a decision, whether the person actually received the notification on that day or not. These deeming rules appear in regulation 5.03 of the Migration Regulations. A letter sent from an address in Australia to another address in Australia is deemed to be received 7 days after the date on the letter, and a letter posted outside Australia or to an address outside Australia is deemed to be received 21 days after the date on the letter. On 4 April 2000 the Full Federal Court ruled in the case of Minister for Immigration v Singh that regulation 5.03 was invalid. The Court held that the regulation could operate in such a way as to deny a person "a meaningful opportunity to apply for review". The effect of ruling the regulation to be invalid is that the date on which a person receives notification of a decision becomes a matter of fact, which can be proven one way or the other by evidence. Where there is no convincing evidence of the actual date of receipt, notice is taken to be received on the fourth business day after it was posted (Evidence Act, s 160) and, again subject to evidence to the contrary, a Commonwealth agency is presumed to have posted a letter on the fifth business day after the date on the letter (Evidence Act, s 163). The ruling has serious implications for current and past cases. Applications which have been treated as valid by the Courts and Tribunals may in fact be invalid, while other applicants may have been wrongly turned away when in fact they should have been allowed to lodge an appeal. So far, there has been no public comment from the government nor any announcement of a legislative reponse. More than anything else, the Court's ruling highlights the absurdity of inflexible deadlines that are a feature of Australian immigration law. Other jurisdictions impose time limits, but they usually allow for appropriate authorities such as Courts or Tribunals to accept applications that are technically out of time in the interests of justice and efficient administration. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2000] FCA 377 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/377.html Hot linksWith each edition of Australian Immigration Law Update we will try to find some new or interesting sites that you might enjoy visiting. This month, you might like to try out some of these*:
*These sites are not in any way endorsed or connected with Parish Patience. The listing of a commercial site does not imply any recommendation or warranty concerning the products or services offered. Contact us:Parish Patience
Solicitors Tel: +612 9286 8700 Liability is limited by the Solicitors Scheme under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW) Previous editions:
Copyright © Parish
Patience Solicitors 2000. All rights reserved.
|
||||||
