Migration Agent Consulting
Primary Applications, Tribunal Appeals and Judicial Review
Simon Jeans is in the unique position of having worked as a representative and Tribunal Member. He is available to give advice on all aspects of primary applications and Tribunal appeals:
What to lodge at the time of application;
Evidence to obtain;
When to lodge further documents:
Interview or hearing preparation;
Strategy before, during and after the interview or hearing;
Ministerial requests; and
We can provide migration agents with submissions to the Department and Tribunal.
We specialise in requests to the Minister under ss.351 and 417 of the Act.
The decisions of Simon Jeans made at the Migration and Refugee Review Tribunals have withstood the scrutiny of judges from the Federal Circuit Court, Federal Court and High Court. In a judgment which overturned one of his decisions made in the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Minister lodged an appeal to the Full Federal Court. The appeal was successful and the decision made in the RRT was upheld as legally correct. This case has been cited as a precedent in over 150 other judgments: MIBP v SZUXN  FCA 516.
Other judgments in which his decisions in the tribunals were upheld include: SZVSW v MIBP  FCA 165; Sun v MIBP  FCCA 2479,  FCAFC 52; SZUYO v MIBP  FCA 970; DZAEQ v MIBP  FCCA 399; SZSZN v MIPB  FCCA 404; SZSIA v MIAC  FCCA 720; SZQUM v MIAC  HCASL 151,  FMCA 79; SZQUI v MIAC  HCASL 166, FCA 839, FMCA 272; Singh v MIBP  FCCA 3021; and Huang v MIAC  FMCA 311.
He has had success in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in a citizenship character case. The Tribunal found that the applicant was of good character to be granted citizenship: Onyeaka and MIBP  AATA 960.
In July 2016, he filed an appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia against a decision made by a case officer at the Australian Embassy in Moscow. There was no merit review, only on a point of law in the court. The case was conceded by the Minister's lawyers before the hearing: Tregubova v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [SYG1808/2016]. Judge Street noted in his Order:
The Minister accepts that the decision is affected by jurisdictional error as the delegate failed to provide the applicant an opportunity to comment on the particulars of information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing to grant a visa, contrary to s 57(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), being that in the period starting 3 years before her visa application was made, a member of the applicant’s family unit has been refused a visa on the ground of failing to satisfy cl 4020(1) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
In another Federal Circuit Court case, a delegate of the Minister refused to waive a No Further Stay condition to allow the applicant to apply for an onshore partner visa. There is no appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in this type of decision, only judicial review. We had also assisted the applicant's migration agent lodge the submission to the Department.
The Minister's solicitor conceded before the hearing: CCS17 v Minster for Home Affairs [SYG2163/2018]. Judge Baird noted in her Order:
1. The Respondent concedes that the decision of the delegate of the Respondent is affected by jurisdictional error in relation to her consideration of reg.2.05(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) as the delegate failed to consider all integers of the Applicant's claims in support of her application for a waiver of Condition 8503. Specifically, the delegate failed to consider:
a) that the applicant was a victim of a robbery and home invasion in Australia; and
b) that the applicant had been requested by the police to provide a victim impact statement in relation to the motor vehicle accident of 26 November 2016 and the applicant wanted to remain in Australia in order to do so.