permanent residents

MANDATORY CHARACTER CANCELLATION HERE TO STAY

If you have been following our blog posts, you will recall that we have previously written about the "mandatory cancellation power" introduced into the Migration Act in December 2014.  Specifically, section 501(3A) states that the Minister must cancel a person's visa if they fail the character test.

The High Court recently heard legal arguments to the effect that the introduction of s 501(3A) was unconstitutional because (among other arguments) it was punitive in nature and purported to confer judicial power on the Minister.  The case was brought by Mr Falzon, who was a 61 year old Maltese citizen who had lived in Australia since the age of 3.  His visa was mandatorily cancelled because he had been convicted of trafficking a large amount of cannabis and received a lengthy term of imprisonment as a result. 

If successful, Mr Falzon's High Court application would mean that hundreds of visas had been unlawfully cancelled over the last three years.  However, on 7 February 2018 the High Court delivered its judgement in Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2 and unanimously concluded that s 501(3A) was here to stay.

In reaching its decision, the High Court made the following observations:

➤ "the power to remove or deport [non-citizens] from a country is executive in nature and it is non-punitive"

➤ "deportation may be burdensome and severe for a non-citizen [...] but s 501(3A) [...] does not increase the punishment for the crime or crimes of which the non-citizen has been convicted or found guilty"

➤ "a person's nationality is not changed by length of residence or an intention permanently to remain in a country of which he or she is not a national"

➤ "as a sovereign nation, Australia has the sole right to decide which non-citizens shall be permitted to enter and remain in this country"

➤ "whilst a [non-citizen] present in this country enjoys the protection of our law, his or her status, rights and immunities under the law differ from those of an Australian citizen in a number of important respects. Relevantly, the most important difference lies in the vulnerability [...] of a [non-citizen] to exclusion or deportation."

If your visa is cancelled under section 501(3A) we suggest that you contact us urgently to discuss.  There is no right of appeal but you can have the decision overturned, if you lodge a revocation application within 28 days.  Putt Legal specialises in "revocation submissions" to the National Character Consideration Centre. 

Update on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2017

On 13 September 2017, the Australian Senate passed a motion to discharge the consideration of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017.

What this means is that, if the Bill is not passed by 18 October 2017, it will be discharged from the Senate Notice Paper and will need to be re-introduced into Parliament if the government wants to persist with its proposed changes.

The good news is that if the Bill is ‘struck off’ the current residency period requirements will remain as is, for the time being.  Those requirements are as follows –

A person has been living in Australia on a valid visa for 4 years immediately before applying, which must include the last 12 months as permanent resident and has not been absent from Australia for a particular period.”

As previously, Putt Legal encourages all permanent residents who meet the current residency requirements to lodge a citizenship application immediately.