From: Denis O'Brien
Sent: Friday, 11 May 2012 10:49 AM
To: Sashka Koloff
Subject: RE: URGENT: Media Watch query [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Sashka
I reply as follows to your queries.
1.
7:30’s story suggested that fraudulent family visa claims from Afghanistan and Pakistan are
being rejected by Australian authorities but then “in many cases they’re over-ruled on
appeal” by the Migration Review Tribunal. What is your response?
The information provided by the Migration Review Tribunal to the ABC does not support this
statement.
The family reunion categories (i.e. visa subclasses 101, 102, 115, and 117) for Afghanistan
and Pakistan form a very small proportion of the Tribunal’s caseload and the number of
cases set-aside or remitted by the Tribunal are even smaller.
The 7.30 story failed to mention that the Tribunal tests the veracity of the evidence before it.
Where there are concerns about the genuineness of a document Tribunal Members can have
the document checked, either by the document examination unit of DIAC, or by staff at
Australian posts overseas.
2.
In his report Hayden Cooper states: “Figures provided to 7:30 show that in some visa
categories more than half of all rejections are later overturned or remitted by the tribunal.”
Can you clarify, and provide Media Watch with, the relevant figures?
While this statement is correct, it does not provide any context to the statistics, namely that
the period in question was over 5 financial years and the total number of family reunion
cases was very small. The statistics provided to the 7.30 report are attached.
An overview of these statistics reveals:
Data without Partner subclasses 300 and 309 for the period 1/7/07 to 31/3/12
Subclasses 101, 102,
115, 116, 117
Total decisions
Number / % set
aside
Afghanistan
Pakistan
All countries
214
133 / 62%
20
8 / 40%
1594
842 / 53%
Data including Partner subclasses 300 and 309 for the period 1/7/07 to 31/3/12
Subclasses 101, 102,
115, 116, 117, 300,
309
Total decisions
Number / % set aside
Afghanistan
Pakistan
All countries
355
217 / 61%
67
42 / 63%
5853
3728 / 64%
Please note that data I provided in my email of 4 May contained an error now rectified in the
above table ( the number set aside should be 3728 out of 5853 decisions with a set aside
rate of 64%; not 3223 decisions out of 5853 with a set aside of 55%).
3.
By comparison to other countries, how often are applications from Afghanistan and
Pakistan referred to the MRT? Can you also clarify the category of visa application you
receive most from this region?
By comparison to other countries, the Tribunal rarely receives applications from Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
During the past 5 financial years the Tribunal received a total of 355 applications from
Afghani nationals and 67 applications from Pakistani nationals.
The largest category of visa application for both Afghanistan and Pakistan is the Subclass
309 (Partner (provisional)).
Please refer to the attached statistics for further details.
4.
You recently provided Media Watch with some figures for the number of cases the MRT
remitted to the Department of Immigration for various visa categories. These figures
included spouse visa decisions. Can you clarify whether spouse visas (sub class 300) are for
family reunification (when a man has been married for some time and wishes to bring his
family to Australia), or rather represents a scenario whereby a man who already has a visa
for Australia marries a woman from overseas and wants her to come to Australia? If you
could provide us with a clear definition of this visa, and the process by which a person
making an application for one must go through, that would be most helpful.
The subclass 300 Prospective Marriage or Fiancé visa is for applicants who wish to enter
Australia on the basis of their relationship with a partner. The partner must be one of the
following:
an Australian citizen
an Australian permanent resident
an eligible New Zealand citizen.
It is a condition of the Subclass 300 visa that the sponsor (i.e. Australian/ NZ partner) and
applicant marry within nine months of being granted the Prospective Marriage visa. The
marriage may take place either in or outside Australia as long as the marriage takes place
after the applicant's first entry to Australia on their prospective marriage visa.
Following their marriage, and before the Prospective Marriage visa expires, the applicant
must apply for a Partner visa to allow them to remain in Australia.
The applicant, as is possible with other visa subclass, may include dependants in their
application who will migrate with them (i.e. children or other family members).
Additional information about this visa subclass is available on the Department’s website at
http://www.immi.gov.au/migrants/partners/prospective/300/how-the-visa-works.htm.
Partner Visa: Offshore Temporary and Permanent (Subclasses 309 and 100)
If you meant to refer to the subclass 309 in your question, both of the scenarios you outlined
could be applicable. That is, the subclass 309 visa can be granted to a couple who have been
in long-standing relationship (either marriage or de facto) or to a newlywed couple.
In both scenarios the partner must be one of the following:
an Australian citizen
an Australian permanent resident
an eligible New Zealand citizen.
This visa allows applicants to enter or remain in Australia on the basis of a married or de
facto relationship with a partner:
on a temporary visa (usually for a waiting period of approximately two years from
the date you applied for the visa)
on a permanent visa if, after the waiting period (if applicable), your partner
relationship still exists and you are still eligible for this visa.
The Australian/NZ partner must provide sponsorship for the applicant.
The applicant, as is possible with other visa subclass, may include dependants in their
application who will migrate with them (i.e. children or other family members).
Additional information about this visa subclass is available on the Department’s website at
http://www.immi.gov.au/migrants/partners/partner/309-100/ .
I hope the above assists.
Regards
Denis
From: Sashka Koloff
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2012 5:11 PM
To: Denis O'Brien
Subject: URGENT: Media Watch query
Dear Denis,
As discussed, Media Watch is taking a look at Hayden Cooper’s report for 7:30, “ Visa fraud
allegations hide child trafficking fears”, broadcast on the 2nd May, 2012. We are seeking to clarify
points made in 7:30’s report, and would very much appreciate it if you could respond to the
following questions:
1.
7:30’s story suggested that fraudulent family visa claims from Afghanistan and Pakistan are
being rejected by Australian authorities but then “in many cases they’re over-ruled on
appeal” by the Migration Review Tribunal. What is your response?
2.
In his report Hayden Cooper states: “Figures provided to 7:30 show that in some visa
categories more than half of all rejections are later overturned or remitted by the tribunal.”
Can you clarify, and provide Media Watch with, the relevant figures?
3.
By comparison to other countries, how often are applications from Afghanistan and
Pakistan referred to the MRT? Can you also clarify the category of visa application you
receive most from this region?
4.
You recently provided Media Watch with some figures for the number of cases the MRT
remitted to the Department of Immigration for various visa categories. These figures
included spouse visa decisions. Can you clarify whether spouse visas (sub class 300) are for
family reunification (when a man has been married for some time and wishes to bring his
family to Australia), or rather represents a scenario whereby a man who already has a visa
for Australia marries a woman from overseas and wants her to come to Australia? If you
could provide us with a clear definition of this visa, and the process by which a person
making an application for one must go through, that would be most helpful.
If you could respond to our questions by lunchtime tomorrow, Friday 11th May, 2012, we would be
most appreciative. Please call me should you seek clarification on any of the above questions.
Regards,