* If
the applicant for a further TPV is unsuccessful at the primary stage and the applicant
decides not to seek a merits review, their TPV will expire 28 days after the
primary decision is handed down. If the applicant decides to seek a
merits review, the TPV is valid until either another TPV is granted, or if the
applicant is unsuccessful in the RRT, 28 days after the decision is handed down
(ie the expiry of the period in which the applicant could have sought review
through the courts) (sch. 2 r. 785.611). If the applicant fails on appeal
to the RRT and decides to appeal through the courts, the applicant will be need
to lodge an application with DIMIA for a bridging visa along with a copy of the
relevant application for review or notice of appeal.
*
Once the applicant has exhausted the review process and has not been granted a
visa, the same processes as apply to other failed applicants will apply.
That is, if the applicant is found not to be a refugee, they are expected to
abide by the conditions of their visa and depart Austraila, if not the
Department is obliged to detain them. However, as the failed applicant
has already been immigration cleared (as the initial grant of a TPV will
immigration clear the applicant), they will have greater access to bridging
visas than a TPV applicant in detention. A bridging visa could be issued
to a failed applicant to enable them to stay in the community while removal is
arranged (DIMIA would have to feel confident that the failed applicant would
comply with deportation orders).
* If an applicant's home country will not
accept them back, DIMIA will detain the applicant until agreement has been
reached with the home country. Just because there is no agreement at
current with certain countries, does not mean that DIMIA will not be able to
reach agreement in the future. Thus the applicant will be detained during
this 'diplomatic gestation period' until agreement is reached. (this is
actually the term they use, how sickening is that???.)
Removal
of unlawful non-citizens occurs by force of law - that is, no
specific
order for removal is required, provided that all conditions in the
Act
have been satisfied. Mandatory removal of unlawful non-citizens was
introduced
to simplify the procedures for removing unlawful non-citizens
from
Australia and to reinforce the principle that unlawful non-citizens
have
no right to stay in Australia. This approach follows logically from
the
connection between a person's right to remain in Australia and a final
decision
being made on a visa application or a visa being cancelled. Once
a
final decision has been made to refuse a visa application or a visa has
been
cancelled, and the time periods providing the opportunity to pursue
merits/judicial
review have expired, no other formal process is necessary
before
removing a person from Australia.
Officers
have the power to remove non-citizens under the following sections
of
the Act:
.
Section 198 provides for the removal from Australia of unlawful
non-citizens
(s 14) (It should be noted that a removal in this instance
will
always occur from detention, even if the removee is detained just
prior
to departure);
.
Section 199 provides for the removal of dependants of a removee (i.e..
spouse
and/or dependent children);
.
Section 205 provides for the removal of dependants of a deportee.
Removal
of unlawful non-citizens (s 198)
A
"removee" is defined in section s 5(1) as "an unlawful
non-citizen
removed,
or to be removed, under Division 8 of Part 2" of the Act. (People
removed
under sections 199 and 205 may not be unlawful non-citizens and
therefore
cannot technically be described as removees).
An
unlawful non-citizen is a person who has no legal right to remain in
Australia.
Unlawful non-citizens make up the largest number of persons
subject
to enforced departure from Australia.
Monitored
departure: The
failed applicant is granted a bridging visa to arrange their own departure.
Supervised
departure: Prepared
to leave at their own expense, usually granted a bridging visa but taken to the
air port.
Removal: When someone is unwilling or
unable to depart, it generally involves a period of detention while departure
arrangements are made by DIMIA. The department meets costs of removal and
detention, and overstayers are given notice that they must repay the debt.
*Apparently
the "Compliance Strategy Section", onshore section will be dealing
with removals. I have been trying to speak to someone there but no one will talk
to me due to confidentially issues.
As
of the 29th of September 2000, the legislation relating to 785 tpv visas
changed (Article 785/ .212). Anyone who receives a tpv after this date
is now no longer eligible to apply for permanent status, and can only apply for
another 3 year visa.
Of
the aprox 6 thousand people who where on one of these visas before this change
of legislation, only about 3-4 thousand people reapplied for a visa, making it
possible for them to hypothetically receive a permanent visa. However the
change of legislation was not properly made public (who's falt is that???) and
unfortunately about 2-3 thousand people did not reapply before the 29th, so even
though they had received a visa before this date, because they did not
reapply before the 29th of sept, they now can no longer apply for a permanent
visa. While anyone who received a tpv visa after this date can not apply
for permanent status at all...
One
more bit of info... Ruddock has publicly stated that if any Afghan people do
not successfully gain afurther visa, he has given an undertaking that he will
not send them home before winter has ended. I don't know when that is though.
And I haven't personally seen this is writting, so one wonders....
785
VISA is a TPV 3 year visa.
866 VISA
is a permanent visa.
*On
shore compliance- (02) 62641111
*Compliance
Officer A.C.T (02) 62477818
*The
department operates a national telephone inquiry line on 131881
*Immigration
update, Consolidated Statistics-
Available
from Ausinfo, GPO Box 84 Canberra
ACT
2621, AND FROM GOVT INFO SHOPS.
Also
there are facts sheets that you can get from DIMIA if you ring and ask,
specifically no. 68.