Immigration law is no longer a specialist niche, it’s a fast-growing risk area that touches employment, business compliance, family disputes, criminal proceedings and even tax outcomes. In this Q&A, Tanja Djokic shares practical insights into where employers and advisers commonly get caught out, why ongoing compliance matters more than ever, and how immigration status can quietly shape the outcome of legal matters across multiple practice areas.
In your view, why has immigration law shifted from a specialist niche to a risk area every lawyer now needs to understand?
Immigration law has become intertwined with all areas of law, because almost all businesses are now "competing globally" or using international talent to gain an edge. Immigration compliance has become a fundamental, and risky, component of general business law, and non-compliance brings severe financial and reputational penalties.
For example, if a business is not complying with immigration regulations, such as not paying minimum required salary to a sponsored worker, working beyond their allowed hours, or not working in their nominated occupation, this non-compliance can bring severe disruptions to the business. It can result in civil and criminal penalties, including fines of over $165,000 per breach for corporations, lead to cancellation of sponsorship licences or cause reputational damage. The government has intensified focus on compliance in recent times, forcing all lawyers, not just specialists, to understand how immigration affects business operations.
From what you’re seeing in practice, where do employers and their advisers most commonly underestimate immigration compliance risk?
From my experience, a lot of employers focus solely on the initial visa approval and fail to manage ongoing obligations. A lot of businesses don’t realize that data-matching between government agencies (tax, immigration, border force) has made compliance an "operational truth" rather than just a paperwork exercise.
Key areas where I find risk is most underestimated include assuming visa approval is the end and failing to comply with the post approval requirements such as monitoring expiries, which often lead to employees working unlawfully, or failing to report changes within 28 days, such as changes to a sponsored employee’s role, salary or location, which can trigger sponsorship bars and heavy fines. The liability can also flow to the directors who can be held personally liable for breaches or penalized even if they did not know a worker was in breach of their visa.
In family law matters, what immigration risks are most often overlooked when dealing with partner visas or cross-border parenting arrangements
Overlooked immigration risks in family law include visa instability from relationship breakdown (especially for temporary holders). For example, ending a relationship while on a temporary partner visa (like the 820/309) can risk visa cancellation unless family violence provisions or child-related exceptions (like a child under 18 with shared parental responsibility) are met, requiring immediate action. Similarly, failure to meet “Schedule 3” criteria (holding a substantive visa when applying for a partner visa) can be a major, often overlooked hurdle, potentially jeopardizing onshore applications and leading to visa refusal or complex waivers.
In terms of cross-border parenting arrangements, there are child abduction risks, triggering the Hague Convention (for return to the “habitual residence”) or domestic removal orders (Airport Watch List). Jurisdictional issues can also apply such as different time limits, enforceability of overseas orders, and identifying the correct country to handle the case. Parents on bridging visas also face precarious status and courts consider their ability to remain when making parenting orders. Bridging visa holders don’t have automatic right to travel so family lawyers need to understand immigration law as much as immigration lawyers need to understand family law, as issues are deeply intertwined and require specialist advice in both areas.
What are the key ways immigration status can impact criminal law outcomes, particularly in matters involving domestic violence, coercive control, bail or sentencing?
Within the scope of criminal law, immigration status impacts outcomes by introducing layers of administrative, financial, and procedural vulnerability, particularly for those on temporary, dependent, or insecure visas. Immigration status is often weaponized by abusers to control or intimidate their partners, making it a critical component of coercive control. Abusers threaten to withdraw sponsorship, cancel visas, or inform immigration authorities, which creates a "system-enabled" abuse that keeps victims trapped. If children are involved, abusers can threaten to take children away, and this fear prevents many migrants from engaging with police or reporting abuse. Temporary visa holders also lack access to social security, Medicare, and public housing, making them financially dependent on the abuser.
Immigration status can also lead to harsher outcomes in bail proceedings, as courts may perceive non-citizens as higher flight risks, leading to bail refusal or stringent bail conditions. A person granted bail in the criminal system may still be detained by immigration authorities if their visa is cancelled under "character" provisions (Section 501 of the Migration Act).
In terms of sentencing, in Australia, a sentence of 12 months or more leads to mandatory visa cancellation, which can result in the person being deported regardless of the severity of the offense. In criminal law matters, some lawyers may raise potential for deportation as a ground to mitigate a sentence, however this may not always be effective, and a person's status as "unlawful" can negatively influence the sentencing outcome. This is why it’s important to regularise immigration status before reaching the sentencing stage, highlighting the importance of immigration lawyers and criminal law practitioners working together.
In your experience, how often do tax and residency assumptions unravel once immigration status is examined more closely?
Tax and residency assumptions frequently unravel during significant life events such as purchasing property, changing jobs, or during a tax authority audit. Tax residency is distinct from immigration status, and assumptions often fail because individuals mistake holding a visa for being a "non-resident for tax purposes". They can also miscalculate the "183-day test," by not realizing that presence in a country for more than half a year, even with breaks, can trigger tax residency.
Penalties and interest may be applied for incorrect self-assessment of residency so taxpayers must look beyond their visa status and evaluate their "intention and behaviour," such as maintaining a permanent home, family, or business ties, which are the primary determinants of tax residency in Australia.
Tanja will explore these issues further in his session ‘When Immigration Law Knocks on Your Client’s Door: Why Immigration Law Risks Are Now Every Lawyer’s Problem Immigration Law 2026 - Visas, Policies and Cases That Could Change Your Client’s Position’ at 10 CPD Units in One Day in Parramatta 2026 on Thursday, 26 February 2026, covering:
- Employers & Employees: sponsorship obligations, compliance checks, workplace liabilities
- Property Law: restrictions on foreign buyers, settlement delays, contract enforcement
- Family Law: partner visas, sponsorship duties, cross-border parenting disputes
- Criminal Law: domestic violence, coercive control, bail and sentencing outcomes linked to deportation risks
- Tax: residency status, payroll obligations, cross-border structuring, and compliance costs
Tanja Djokic, Principal Solicitor, TD Migration Consulting
Tanja Djokic is a Principal Solicitor of TD Migration Consulting, law practice specialising in immigration law. Tanja has extensive experience working with both corporate and individual clients and focuses her business practice on providing high quality immigration advice. Tanja is admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of NSW, High Court of Australia and is also admitted as a Solicitor and Barrister of High Court of New Zealand. Tanja is also a Member of the Law Society of Australia and Migration Institute of Australia. Under Tanja’s leadership, TD Migration Consulting was a Finalist for Outstanding Professional Services at the 2022 and 2023 Parramatta Local Business Awards. In 2023, Tanja was also selected as a Finalist for Private Practice Lawyer of the Year, awarded by Women Lawyers Association of NSW. In 2025, Tanja was also a finalist for Sole Practitioner of the Year, at the Lawyers Weekly Women In Law Awards.
