Liang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)  AATA 3782
The Department refused the applicant’s citizenship application because he did not satisfy the requirement to have a close and continuing association with Australia while overseas. The AAT found the applicant’s connection with Australia during his time away was more consistent with being a regular visitor rather than a resident and affirmed the decision.
Mallett and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy  AATA 3739
The applicant was due to have her bankruptcy discharged until the trustee objected because the applicant had transferred assets to prevent creditors from accessing them The AAT reviewed the evidence and investigated the transfer.
Horne and Comcare (Compensation)  AATA 4021
The applicant received compensation for a back injury and made two further claims for psychological and physical conditions that arose from the back injury. The AAT affirmed Comcare’s decision that they were not liable for the conditions.
Migration and Refugee
1600050 (Refugee)  AATA 3888
The applicant claimed to fear harm if returned to Indonesia from debt collectors acting on behalf of disgruntled pilgrims. The AAT affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse the visa based on issues with the applicant’s credibility.
1810335 (Refugee)  AATA 3927
The applicant’s protection visa was cancelled after the Department found he had provided incorrect answers with his Protection visa application. The AAT affirmed the Department’s decision.
Burton (Migration)  AATA 4220
This matter concerned the cancellation of a visa where the visa holder was a New Zealand citizen but a long-standing resident of Australia and had been charged with, but not yet convicted of, serious offences. The AAT set aside the decision and substituted a decision not to cancel the visa, which would allow any decision about visa cancellation to be considered after the outcome of a criminal trial was known.
Myung (Migration)  AATA 4063
The Department refused to grant the applicant a Student visa because there was insufficient evidence that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant. The AAT concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily and affirmed the Department’s decision.