Rory and Michelle have been in Australia for 12 years… but they’ve been told to leave because of a visa error they say is not their fault
Rory and Michelle, a South African couple who have lived in Australia for 12 years, have been told they must leave the country after a visa error they insist was not their doing. The case highlights the harsh consequences migrants can face when administrative mistakes in the immigration system lead to deportation, even after long periods of settled residence, work and community ties. It also raises questions about accountability when errors originate with visa processing rather than the applicants themselves.
The couple say they built their lives in Australia over more than a decade, only to be caught out by a bureaucratic mix-up they had no control over. They are now facing removal from the country despite having what they describe as a strong, established presence there, and are challenging the decision on the grounds that responsibility for the error lies elsewhere, not with them.
- South African couple face deportation after 12 years in Australia
- They blame a visa error that was not their fault
- Case raises concerns over accountability in immigration processing
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for Rory and Michelle argue that immigration systems must be applied with proportionality and basic fairness, and that people who have spent twelve years building a home, working and contributing to a regional community should not be uprooted over an administrative mistake that was not of their own making. They contend that if the error originated with the department or an adviser rather than the couple, the human cost of enforcing removal is disproportionate to any breach of the rules, and that a compassionate, case-by-case exception is entirely consistent with the spirit of a system meant to reward genuine long-term contribution and good character.
The case against
Those defending strict application of the visa rules argue that immigration law depends on consistency and clear boundaries to remain fair and credible, and that officials cannot selectively excuse breaches, however sympathetic the circumstances, without undermining the integrity of the system for everyone who follows the rules correctly. They would point out that visa conditions exist precisely because compliance is the responsibility of the visa holder, and that making exceptions for hardship, however genuinely felt, risks creating uncertainty, perceptions of unfairness towards compliant applicants, and pressure for ever-broader discretionary exemptions.