绝望中找希望， 这句话大家并不陌生。但是当对自己影响很大的事情压过来，自己可能受到情绪的影响，就不能客观的分析利弊做出正确的决定。 这个时候，你需要你个靠谱的人帮你分析利弊给出一个胜率最高的方案。
最近我们有一个客户是参与了新州议员Daryl Maguire 买卖签证的项目，事情搞的很大，惊动了澳洲廉政公署ICAC 主导调查，一共有18个中国移民家庭受到这次调查的影响。移民局也相应了对这18个家庭采取了取消签证的行动。由于事发地点是在NSW，这18个家庭都是住在NSW的。
其中一个中国家庭从NSW找到了SA的我们，帮助他们解决这个问题。我们看了他们的case 后觉得的确很棘手，又牵扯ICAC 廉政公署，属于政府督办案件。但是我们志杰移民分析了案情以后，发现移民局的签证官犯了一个程序性的错误，错误理解了签证担保和签证申请的关系。这是一个不很明显的错误，很多人都会犯。
就算发现了这个错误，我们还有一个问题，如何解释客户提供信息被移民局认为是造假的问题。在我们这个客户的案例中，移民局认为他出入境卡片的信息是造假的，没理由提供一个公司的地址，这个公司还是受到ICAC调查牵连的公司。我们根据1938年的一个Old case law Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 368 对于签证取消这类的civil case, 应该运用的不是一般的civil burden of proof, 是一种特别的modified civil burden of proof, 并且在 ASIC v Adler (No 3) (2002) 20 ACLC 576, Santow J stated “although the proceedings before court were not criminal, the character of civil penalty proceedings required the court to invoke requirements for prosecutorial fairness and a standard of proof that took into consideration the gravity of allegation. 来说服AAT，移民局并没有充分的证据来说明客户造假，所以不能取消客户的签证。
We concede that to live in an industrial estate was not reasonable. But there is no requirement for the visa holder to be a reasonable person. Even though her intention may be unreasonable, however, there is no evidence to show that her intended address was not her intention at the time of filling the incoming card. There is no evidence to show there is any utility to provide incorrect information on the incoming passenger card. Her intended address may be wrongly chosen because of her misunderstanding of the nature of the place or her misbelief that the industrial estate was a proper place to live. The fair conclusion is
the intended address is unreasonable but there is not sufficient evidence to
disapprove her intention to be correct in 2017.
我们就是抓到移民局在NOICC犯的2个程序性的失误，推翻了NOICC的有效性，保住了这个客户的签证。
S101 requires visa applications to be correct. Department has no information on the
initiating notice (NOICC) suggests that the incorrect answers in the nomination are
given or provided in the visa application.
Therefore, if Tribunal directs its findings at particulars of non-compliance which were
given in the initiating notice, it will find the incorrect information is not provided by the
visa applicant in her visa application.
As Tribunal cannot possibly find that the nomination application is from the visa
applicant, the incorrect information in the RSMS nomination which given in the
initiating notice cannot be the ground for S109 cancellation. “The Tribunal’s only
power in relation to a decision made without substantive power was to set aside that
decision (c.f. Brennan J in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of
Customs (NSW)(1978) 1 ALD 167 at 176)”