Permanent residence visa grant to victim of domestic violence (domestic violence is also referred to as family violence). A client approached us with claims of domestic but had already made application for Partner (Onshore) sc 820/801 visa. We had advised the client on the types of evidence required as being judicially or non-judicially determined. The client did not have judicially determined evidence so we advised on lawful requirements for non-judicially determined forms of evidence. Once obtained, we composed a detailed legal submission requesting grant of Permanent Residence sc 801 visa on grounds the applicant was the victim of domestic violence. Upon review, the Department considered evidence and accepted the applicant's claims of family violence. Subclass 801 visa was subsequently granted to the applicant, along with secondary applicants.

A client approached us with a refusal decision for TSS-482 nomination application. The decision record was issued the day before approaching us. Following review of grounds of refusal, we advised appeal by way of internal review to the Department, and not AAT appeal. We provided a fully detailed submission with supporting evidence and documents to support claims the Department had made the decision in error. Upon review, the refusal decision was 'remitted' back to the section for processing with instruction the refusal was made in error. Nomination was granted within 4 weeks of remit, allowing tss 482 visa application to proceed to be made.

Our client was seeking South Australian Government nomination for subclass 408 Temporary Activities visa through Entrepreneur stream. The client's core business proposal of transports and logistics proposed localised door to door delivery of packages and documents. The proposal aimed to utilise existing localised delivery and logistics networks to provide heavily discounted rates (upwards of 80% margins per movement) on deliveries. Design and sale of bespoke boxes for storage and haulage were proposed to deliver additional revenue and local employment. We represented the client in drafting the proposal in accordance with South Australian Government requirements and Migration Regulations compliance. The client was subsequently offered Nomination and proceeded to make visa application.

A relative of a Villawood Immigration Detention Centre detainee approached us with details on the arrest and detention of a loved one. We reviewed the detainee's migration history and present eligibility for release. We provided advice and representation to the Department and gathered required supporting documents and evidence to lodge with our submission requesting release by grant of bridging visa. The case was reviewed by the relevant section and concurred the detainee did not constitute a risk of non-compliance. The detainee was subsequently granted bridging visa and released from detention. Future pathway planning and advice has been given to the detainee and his family.

Our client's visa application was cancelled on grounds of non-compliance with visa conditions. The client approached us to undertake a revocation request with the Department. We advised on evidence requirements and case law history that supports claims we intended to make in the submission. The client was able to gather requisite information with our support and advice. The revocation was not successful, so we undertook to represent the client at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The case was won with submissions and attendance at hearing with the client. The member concurred with our submissions that grounds for revocation existed in the case, and the Tribunal determined to revoke the cancellation decision of the Department.

With a strong reputation in nomination applications for sponsored work visas, and Training sc 407 Visa in particular, we received good news of 3 separate (and unrelated) nomination approvals in one week! This is an outstanding result when nomination refusals are very high at time of application (according to internal Departmental statistics for January - March). We had applied the same, rigorous approach of a detailed Comprehensive Training Plan, Training Agreement, Letter of Offer and Genuine Training Submission to each application. Two of the nomination applicants had already been refused on grounds of insufficient Training Plan.