October 2019 Issue 748
A long wait
A recent Question on Notice by Senator Keneally provides statistics on the partner visa programme from 30 June 2014 – 30 June 2019:
Backlog of 801 visa cases up from 63,000 to 95,000.
Total backlog cases up from 161,000 to 214,000.
Total number of applicants in backlog up from 190,000 to 245,000.
90% of 801 cases finalised up from 337 to 768 days.
309 annual lodgements down from 30,000 to 20,000, while 820 lodgements up from 31,000 to 38,000.
95,000 grants of 309/100/820/801 visas in FY 2018/19.
From Australia and elsewhere
A special ritual on a full-moon night in a graveyard.
A citizenship tip
From courts and tribunals.
The Australian study requirement
Business shut down
Any migration agent considering suing a client for unpaid fees should read the two decisions below:
Useful information from the Procedures Advice Manual:
Responding to enquiries about MOC Costing breakdowns
Where a visa applicant receives a DNM outcome for the health requirement due to significant costs, the applicant will receive a DNM letter which states the services for which the MOC calculated as expected to incur significant costs. Upon receipt of this letter, visa applicants and/or their Migration Agents, may contact the Department requesting a breakdown of the costs of the services identified.
How to respond to requests for MOC costing breakdowns
The breakdown of the MOC costings, contained within the ‘Significant Cost’ section of the DNM outcome, can be provided directly to visa applicants and Migration Agents if requested. There is no need to submit a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Documents can be released outside of the FOI Act, such as administratively or under the Privacy Act.
If visa processing officers receive these requests, visa processing officers are to respond directly. These requests do not need to be sent to Health. Visa processing officers can access this information directly from the HAP – Health Assessments, located within the DNM assessment. Please note that no further information is available other than what is included in HAP- Health Assessments, neither Health Policy nor the MMSP are able to provide further details. Visa processing officers are to use the following template in their response, along with a screen shot of the cost breakdown (please ensure that the MOC name is not included in the screenshot):
This costing is calculated by the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) applying their clinical judgment regarding the applicant’s specific condition, guided by the information contained within the Department of Home Affairs Notes for Guidance. A visa applicant (or a non-migrating family member) cannot be found to meet the health requirement for the grant of certain visas if they have a disease or condition that is likely to result in a “significant cost” to the Australian community in the areas of health care or community services. Under policy, the threshold at which costs are currently considered to be significant is AUD 49 000.
When assessing the likely costs involved with a disease and/or condition that an applicant has, a MOC applies the hypothetical person test. MOCs take into account the cost of health care or community services for which a hypothetical person with the same form and level of the applicant’s condition would be eligible. This includes the expected duration of services likely to be required by the applicant
Please note that no further breakdown or information regarding this costing can be provided.
The views of a reader
An edited extract from an email received from a reader.
In the Australia constitution Section 99 requires that the federal government deals with states equally in matters of trade, commerce, or revenue.
This can be read here
There could be breaches of this depending on how the scope is defined with regards to immigration. For example in a media release on 4th March
2018 the minister highlighted a special visa program the will be implemented for South Australia before other states.
The release specifically refers to the economy, and business and investment. For these reasons I believe it falls within the scope of Section 99 as it relates to commerce, and likely to trade and revenue as well.
The release is here:
Section 99 refers not only to states, but to a “part thereof”, so legislation that provides benefits to commerce for specific regions only would potentially be unconstitutional. How would RSMS fit under this?
It’s definitely related to commerce. What about quotas for Subclass 188? They’re business visas and therefore related to commerce. Different states have different quotas.
Anything but migration
She brought a snack
Lewis & Bollard
Solicitors and migration agents
Level 9, 48 Hunter Street Sydney 2000
PO Box A96, Sydney South NSW 1235
Telephone: +61 (02) 92830888 Fax: +61 (02) 92836611
Information (or the lack of it) contained in past, the present or future editions of the Migration Newsletter (the newsletter) should not be relied on by anyone as immigration assistance or legal advice. Peter Bollard and Gareth Lewis expressly disclaim any liability, arising at law, in equity or otherwise, for any information published or not published in past, the present or future editions of the newsletter. People seeking immigration assistance should seek advice from a registered migration agent and those seeking legal advice should consult with a lawyer. The copyright in the newsletter belongs to Peter Bollard and no part of the newsletter is to be reproduced by any means without the written consent of Peter Bollard.