The applicant’s visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as he did not pass the 'character test' due to his substantial criminal record. The Tribunal set aside the decision and substituted that the decision to cancel the visa be revoked.
The applicant sustained a workplace injury while employed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as a result of repetitive computer and telephone work and Comcare determined that the applicant had no present entitlement to compensation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside this decision.
The applicant was rejected a claim for the disability support pension by the Department of Human Services (Centrelink). The conditions set out in his claim include depression, bilateral knees osteoarthritis, lower back pain, benign prostatic hypertrophy and obstructive sleep apnoea. On second review, the Tribunal found these impairments were not rated at 20 points under the Impairment Tables and affirmed the decision.
The applicant’s citizenship application was refused due to a finding he failed to satisfy the residence requirement after extended absences overseas. The applicant was employed by an Australian University and submitted his absences were due to his work. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.
The applicant’s visa was cancelled due to a finding he did not pass the ‘character test’. This decision was based on the finding that he had a “substantial criminal record” after several driving offences, assault convictions and two public order convictions. The Tribunal substituted the decision exercising the discretion not to cancel the visa.
Migration and Refugee Division
An application made by a family of three for Protection visas was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant seeking protection claimed he was at risk of torture if returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal remitted the decision with the direction that the applicant satisfied section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.
The applicant was refused a Protection visa by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as she was found not to face a real chance of serious harm in Malaysia. The applicant's reasons for her claim of protection were fear of her husband and the future of her child. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.
The applicant’s visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. after he provided incorrect information on a passenger card, prohibited by the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal affirmed this decision.
The applicant’s Prospective Marriage (Temporary) visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The sponsor had successfully sponsored three previous partners for similar visas. The Migration Regulations 1994 sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in a lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsor of no less than five years. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.
The review applicant sought two Orphan Relative visas for his younger siblings on the basis that their only existing carer, their mother, was incapacitated and could not care for them. The applications were refused by a delegate under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration with the direction they met the criteria for the visas.
Social Services and Child Support Division
A decision was made by the Department of Human Services not to change the care percentages in a child support assessment after it was alleged the pattern of care of a child had changed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.
A decision was made by an objections officer of the Department of Human Services – Child Support terminating the child support of the liable parent. The matter concerned the care percentages of the parents and whether a terminating event occurred. The Tribunal found that a terminating event did not occur and set aside the decision, substituting amended care percentages for a certain period.
Taxation and Commercial Division
The Commissioner of Taxation issued amended tax assessments to the applicant and also imposed administrative penalties on the basis that the applicant made false statements in her assessments which suggested a reckless disregard for the law. The Tribunal was not persuaded the applicant had demonstrated the commissioner’s assessments were excessive and affirmed the Commissioner’s decisions.