New changes introduced in Migration (LIN 19/184: Arrangements for Work and Holiday Visa applications) Instrument. On 26 June 2019, Migration (LIN 18/174: Arrangements for Work and Holiday Visa Applications) Instrument 2018 has been repealed. Greece and Eucador passport holders have now been included in the list of foreign countries eligible to apply for the Work and Holiday visa from 1 July 2019. Further passport holders of Austria, Portugal and Spain together with the countries mentioned in Regulation LIN 18/174 are not required to provide evidence of government support for the grant of their visa. WHM visa holders who carry out 6 months of specified work in regional areas while on their second Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa or Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa may be eligible to apply for a third visa. Eligible types of work and regional areas will correspond with the requirements for the second visa. The Department has simplified the process of applying for a Work and Holiday visa application. Applicants holding a valid passport from an eligible country including Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Turkey can now apply online through their immi account.
There are 114 occupations on the South Australian Regional Workforce Agreement which provide employers in key regional growth industries of agribusiness, health and aged care, hospitality and tourism, mining and construction sectors with the ability to access and retain a skilled workforce. The South Australian Regional Workforce Agreement covers the entire state of South Australia. Agribusiness occupations will apply to the businesses located in the 5110 – 5734 postcodes. The South Australian Designated Area Migration Agreement also provides eligible businesses access to occupations not listed in ANZSCO, these are identified under the code ‘ANZSCO 070499’ mentioned on the South Australian Regional Workforce Designated Area Migration Agreement. Presently Production Horticulturalist and Senior Production Horticulturalist are identified under the ANZSCO 070499. Information relating to APPLICATION PROCESS and HOW TO APPLY will be available from 1 July 2019 on the website of South Australia immigration.
The 2019-20 ACT Occupation List http://www.canberrayourfuture.com.au/portal/migrating/article/act-occupation-list/ will apply to all Canberra Matrix submitted on or after 1 July 2019. If you submitted a Canberra Matrix on or before 30 June 2019, your Matrix score for a nominated occupation is valid for six months. On the Invitation date 11 June 2019, Canberra issued 652 invitations. The invitations were issued to matrix submitted with 145 to 65 points and 60 points matrix submitted on or before 31 March 2019. Canberra was ranked 22nd in the world in the 2018 QS Best Student City Rankings. Canberra offers the highest proportion of on-campus student accommodation in Australia. Canberra offers a strong return on educational investment with a choice of 5 world class universities, vocational education and training institutions, a high achieving school system and flexible pathways. Further Canberra has a strong knowledge based economy and offers plenty of employment opportunities during study and post-graduation. If you are looking to invest in Canberra email investcanberra@act.gov.au to connect to one of the investment teams. More information on living in Canberra can be found at http://www.canberrayourfuture.com.au/portal/living/article/useful-links/.
Increase in Visa application charges from 1 July 2019 As per the Migration Amendment visa Business Skills Business Talent (Permanent) (Class EA), Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN), Parent (Migrant) (Class AX) are some of the visas types whose fees will increase from July 1 2019. Visa subclasses like Skilled — Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) and other visas will see fee increase only on 16 November 2019.
Tribunal’s failure to consider substantial evidence in the assessment of the “four pillars” In the recent decision of Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs, the Federal Court has confirmed that the Tribunal must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the factors set out in regulation 1.15A (3) and 1.09(A) of Migration Regulations 1994 where there is a finding as to the facts (or evidence) that bear upon those factors. Brief Background The appellant, Ms Nguyen, who was born in Australia married her partner, Mr Huynh, a Vietnamese citizen in 2014. An application for Partner visa (subclass 309) was refused in 2015 to which the appellant sought a review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the partner visa. The appellant exercised her right to seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court, which was refused in 2018. Consequently, the appellant sought an appeal in the Federal Court. The Federal Court held that the primary judge in FCC erred in finding that there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in failing to consider the four pillars. Grounds of Appeal The following appeals were made: The Tribunal failed to consider evidence as to the couple’s long term plans based on their subjective views (as set out to do so); The Tribunal rejected evidence from family members because they did not set out any reasons for why they believed the relationship is genuine when there were reasons that the Tribunal was required to consider; The Tribunal failed to consider the nature of the couple’s commitment as it did not properly consider evidence of their regular communication; and The Tribunal failed to consider the liability incurred by the sponsor for the cost of an airfare for Ms Nguyen to visit Vietnam that had been paid by the sponsor’s brother Breakdown of the Federal Court’s Consideration Ground 1: Views as to long term relationship The Court held that the statutory declarations provided by both the applicant and the sponsor regarding their long term plans does not demonstrate that there was a failure to consider long term plans. The terms in Reg 1.15A(3)(d(iv) (whether the persons see the relationship as a long-term) expressed concerns their present state of mind concerning the relationship. Therefore, their plans and intentions may form part of the inquiry. However, this factor may also be consider based on objective information about what the couple have done in the past as well as by reference to evidence from the parties as to their future plans. Therefore, Ground 2 failed on the basis that it did not rise above the factual finding made by the Tribunal. Ground 2: Genuine and continuing relationship The Court held that the Tribunal’s reasoning did not concern the reasons why the family members expressed the view in their statutory declarations that the relationship was genuine. The Tribunal considered that none of the sworn statements provided by the family members set out any reasons why they believe the relationship is genuine. The FCC found that the appellant’s submissions was “not based on a fair reading of the Tribunal’s reasons, and that it was apparent from reading the Tribunal’s reasons “as a whole” that the Tribunal expressly referred to the statutory declarations and took them into account in relation to the issue of the genuineness of the relationship. The Court held “it is not correct to describe these statements as not setting out any reasons why each of the deponents consider the relationship to be genuine”. Further, it held that “it is NOT correct to describe the Tribunal’s reasons ‘as a whole’ as considering and not accepting the reasons advanced as to the genuineness of the relationship”. Ground 3: Nature of the commitment The Court found that although the Tribunal has not accepted that there were long telephone calls but has accepted that the parties communicate on a regular basis. For such reason, it is apparent that this ground is no more than a complaint about a factual finding by the Tribunal. Ground 4: Joint liabilities The Court found that the financial matters were considered by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal made a finding directed to a particular evidence. Therefore, the matters raised do not demonstrate jurisdictional error. Key Takeaways It is vital for migration agents who appear before the Tribunal to raise any evidence or facts that the Tribunal had plainly misread or overlooked. Generally, the Tribunal will be found to have failed to perform its review function ‘if it failed to take into account of cogent evidence providing substantial support to the applicant’s case’, or ‘if it failed to take account of a substantial and clearly articulated argument advanced by the applicant in support of that case’: SZMTA Getting Assistance If your partner application has been refused and you believe that the evidence you have provided has not been properly considered, it is worthwhile to seek immigration legal advice as to whether your case would have a reasonable prospect of success. At Migration Centre of Australia, we are well-trained to handle highly complex matters. Book one of our agents for professional advice by calling 02 4626 1002 or email us to book in a time at admin@mckkrs.com.au. We also speak fluent Hindi, Nepalese, Punjabi, Turkish, Tamil, Portuguese and Marathi. If one of these isn’t your language, we can also help you arrange an interpreter.
407 visa applications are among the most difficult visa applications at the moment, with refusal rates higher than any other visa subclass. The most common reasons for refusal are based on poorly written and structured training plans. At the Migration Centre of Australia, we specialise in creating tailor-made training plans to fit individual client training needs and address occupational skill gaps. Generally, the training programme should comprise of at least 30 hours a week of training, and at least 70% of that training must be conducted in the workplace. It must be structured and individually tailored to the nominee, in line with Department of Home Affairs (DOHA) requirement that the workplace-based training be a unique employment-based activity for the nominee. To be structured and individually tailored to the training needs of the nominee, the programme should: Clearly differentiate between periods of practical work experience and periods of instruction and/or observation Outline the objectives, tasks and timeframes ‘include an assessment of the nominated trainee’s current level of skill in the identified occupation Outline the additional or enhanced skills the applicant is aiming to gain The tasks to be completed and outcomes to be achieved should be consistent with the objectives of the programme, include timeframes for completion, and show and increase in difficulty and complexity over the course of the training programme to allow the nominated trainee to progress to a higher level skills capability. It is expected that a structured training programme will include supervision by appropriately qualified and experienced supervisors. An example of an appropriate qualification for a Supervisor would be a Certificate IV in training and assessment. Appropriate experience would be someone with specialised knowledge and experience in the subject area, for example an architect with 10 years’ experience, including specific experience in the area of the proposed training programme, would be qualified to supervise, train and assess the learning outcomes of a junior architect. DOHA will consider the supervisor-to-trainee ratio to ensure the training is individualised to the nominee. The workplace-based training must be a unique employment-based activity for the individual nominee. The training programme should include mechanisms for the learning outcomes of the applicant to be monitored and assessed. Details of any qualifications that will be assessed on completion of the training should be outlined. This is because, although obtaining a qualification should not be the primary purpose of the programme, it can be incidental to the programme. If more than one organisation is providing workplace based training, the training programme must specify each workplace and its address, the training to be undertaken at each workplace and the dates of the training at the each workplace. Without this level of detail, the training plan cannot be considered to meet the requirement that it is structured training. Getting Assistance McKkr’s specialise in writing Training plans for 407 visa, therefore if you need any assistance with subclass 407 visa kindly contact our office. At McKkrs, we also provide CPD classes for RMAs and lawyers practicing migration law and would be happy to assist you where possible. Please contact our office on (02) 4626 1002 or simply email us at admin@mckkrs.com.au.
Small Businesses account for 97% of all Australian enterprises. To put things into perspective, Victoria experienced a 4.8% increase in its small business sector for the year of 2018 which is the highest on record. This imminent growth however, comes with its challenges. One of those challenges includes stress on recruitment. Almost half (48%) of Australian Small Businesses report the recruitment of skilled employees as a challenge for their business, potentially hindering their growth plans for 2018. In a large-scale study commissioned and released by Indeed, one quarter of Australian Small Businesses cite recruitment as their biggest challenge, with 40% believing it to be harder today than it was five years ago, despite two thirds reporting that they plan to expand their workforce in 2018. According to this report, it takes Australian Small Businesses an average of five weeks and $3300 to fill a position, with close to half spending more than $1000 each time, which represents a big investment. With access to fewer resources, this is an arena where 407 Training Visas can be utilised. Migration Agents have access to high quality recruitment opportunities that are democratised. As Migration Agents, we can reach the most relevant talent at a cost that suits everyone’s budget. By understanding the company’s unique appeal and using tools that cater to motivated prospective 407 applicants, Small Businesses can experience great success in recruiting quality candidates faster and at less cost. Tighter budgets, limited time and no dedicated HR department are just some of the sticking points and we can close these gaps and make the process of recruitment easier. Fast growth in particular sectors and the need to fill roles quickly also creates strain. The Indeed report compiled a list of the jobs that small business find the hardest to fill ranked and these include: English teacher, facilitator, chiropractor, general practitioner, fitness trainer, real estate agent, dental technician, plasterer, and architect. If these are occupations which you are pursuing and/or have experience in, this is something to keep in mind when thinking about training opportunities. It is also worth noting that small business usually aren’t encumbered with the same bureaucracy as large companies. If you think you have found the right employer, Mckrrs’ is a leader in the Migration Industry in 407 Training Visas and we are happy to assist with any and all applications you require, as we work closely with businesses to nominate suitable people.
AAT Court: The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The Tribunal takes into account that the applicant has persevered with his English studies, that he passed the entrance exam and met the admission criteria for the Diploma at the Institute, that he had commenced these studies prior to receipt of the NOICC and that he has sought and received psychological assistance. SUMMARY : The Delegate cancelled the Student visa on the basis that the applicant was not or was likely not to be, a genuine student, and that the grounds for cancelling the visa outweighed the grounds for not cancelling the visa. The applicant (Student) lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal. A Minister or the Tibunal may cancel a visa if it is satisfied that the holder of a student visa is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student. At the Tribunal the visa applicant provided evidence that he has been under a lot of stress due to language difficulties and the differing environment, which affected his academic performance. He was diagnosed as clinically depressed on his visit to the psychologist. The visa applicant was enrolled in English courses, before he could commence his Diplomas. Though PRISMS suggested that his lack of progress in his studies when he held no enrollment and when he did not study, might suggest failure to demonstrate academic progression that might be expected of a genuine student, the Tribunal indicated that such a conclusion would mean that there was a ground for cancellation of the visa. The applicant told the Tribunal his original and continuing intention was to come to Australia to study. If his intention had not been to do that, he would not have changed to a new school and recommenced study. He did not expect that studying at a University would be that hard for him and he changed to another institute. Issue 1 – Does the ground for cancellation exist? The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant has persevered with his English studies, that he passed the entrance exam and met the admission criteria for the Diploma at the International Institute, that he had commenced these studies prior to receipt of the NOICC and that he has sought and received psychological assistance. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence overall supports that the applicant is not, or is not likely not to be, a genuine student. Issue 2 – Should the discretion to cancel the visa be exercised? The Tribunal has found that the ground for cancellation does not exist, it is not necessary to consider this issue as he has taken the initiative to seek psychological help and continue/pursue his studies.
According to a new report from Deloitte Access Economics, the total inward investment flows from Australia’s Significant Investor Visa program since it was launched in 2012 has now topped $10 billion, Julia Gillard’s Labour Government launched the SIV program with the goal of bringing more overseas high net-worth individual investors into Australia. Experts believe the program has delivered much greater value than the $10 billion these visa holders have invested in the local economy. The report, Impact of the Significant Investor Visa Program – a long-term proposition for Australia, will be launched in Canberra this week in conjunction with the Australia China Business Council. The report found that while the Significant Investor Visa program accounts for just 0.1 per cent of all visas issued annually, its positive impacts across business and the economy are far wider. Nearly 2,100 Significant Investor Visas have been issued since 2012. The qualifying investments from SIV holders are divided a several predetermined categories, with a requirement that a minimum $500,000 be invested in startups and growth funds through venture, private capital and other investment options. The remaining $4.5 million can be split between ASX-listed companies, government bonds and a limited amount on property investment. Mainland Chinese nationals make up the lion’s share of SIV recipients, making up about 76 per cent of the total visas issued. This percentage is down from about 87 per cent in recent months. The SIV program, which is considered a premium path to permanent residency, has been running at an annualised rate of about 235 visas per year – or about $1.175 billion in new capital. Although some have noted the program’s lack of oversight into the origins of the invested funds, particularly through the criticism levied by a 2016 Productivity Commission report, the program has been widely praised within the investment community and business sector for its boost to funding and available capital.
The Department of Home Affair’s website will be unavailable for short periods due to maintenance between 4pm and 10 pm Saturday 22 June 2019 (AEST).