G1083 Australian Migration Law And Practice

Question:

This assignment is based on the Muradzi case v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA976 (26th August 2011).

Examine and discuss in plain English the reasons Tracey J gave for his decision, and the implications of that case in relation to valid Visa applications.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
G1083 Australian Migration Law And Practice
Just from $8/Page
Order Essay

Discuss the principles of statutory Interpretation used by Tracey (if any) in arriving at his conclusion.

Answer:

Muradzi V Minister for Immigration And Citizenship [2011] FCA976 (26 August 2011).

One Brief Fact about the Case:

In the present case, the appellant has applied for a Skilled Visa (provisional) (ClassVC).

The process for applying for visas is covered in the Migration Act and regulation.

The appellant is seeking to renew her visa application. But, the application must be renewed by the Migration Regulations before 15 March 2010. Otherwise, the visa will automatically expire.

The appellant submitted a visa application the same day. However, the method of applying was not correct according to the Migration Regulation.

The concerned office received and reviewed the appellant’s application within the deadline.

Accordingly, the application is rejected.

The appellant sought a judicial appeal and appealed to the Federal Court of Australia against the decision of the Officer of the Immigration Department.

Reasons For The Decision

The following reasons were used by the Judge to dismiss the appeal.

The minister was not required by law to hear the appeal.

It is required that an application be made via internet, post or courier.

The appellant did not choose any of the other options, and instead sent the electronic application. According to the act, this is invalid.

According to the regulations, the appellant must file visa application in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within a specified time limit.

The regulations have been broken by the appellant.

item 1229(3) (a) has been violated and the appellant has not filed for visa in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The visa application received at the office can therefore not be considered as a Migration Regulation application.

Judge Tracey reached this conclusion by stating that the Court should approach item (1229 (3)(a)’s construction the same way as it has approached the equivalent sub items (I (dealing in prescribed forms) or (2) (dealing regarding fees).

The judge who is examining the provisions of Section 45(2) and (3) states that the appellant failed to comply with the Act’s provisions under Sec.

45(2) and (3).

Accordingly, Judge Tracey ruled that the decision falls under Regulation 2.07(I) requirements that must be fulfilled for visa applications to be valid.

Judge Tracey held all provisions related to visa application were an integral part of the prescriptive legislative scheme.

For a valid application to be granted, it must meet all the requirements of this scheme.

Following the agreement of High Court Judges, Judge Buehler stated that the Minister could not accept the purported application.

The court stated that it was not the purpose of the legislation for an act to violate or breach a provision of the legislation to be invalid. It all depends on the language of the legislation and its scope and object.

Tracey J ruled that the appellant had violated the Acts & Regulations of Migration Department. Accordingly, the Visa application made by the appellant was invalid.

Implications of This Case in Relation to Valid Visa Application

The court dismissed the appellant’s visa application. It asked the ministry to not accept the visa application if the Act or regulations do not apply.

This case provided clarity and precedent on what constitutes valid visa applications.

This was because the Minister had the authority to create the statute and to determine what applicants who want to file valid visa applications.

It also vindicated Minister and established the role of Minister in valid visa application.

It also highlighted the importance for applicants for valid visas to follow all rules and adhere to all requirements.

Principle Of Statutory Interpretation:

Judge Tracey adopted as his rules the literal rule for construction, based on the principles and the object of Act/intentions of parliament.

In order to reach the correct statutory interpretation, Judge Tracey had to look at both the language and scope of the relevant provisions.

The literal rule principle is the most important rule for interpreting statutes. It allows the Judge to examine the principle or parliament intention/object in Act and the scheme.

The Judge provided the word’s literal, grammatical, and statutory meanings to establish the legislature intent.

In his decision to hear the appealants’ case, the judge considered Section 25C from the Acts Interpretation Act 2001.

It states that strict compliance is not required when a form has been prescribed by the Act. However, substantial compliance is sufficient.

The court can declare invalid an applicant’s action if a statutory provision requires that an application must be made.

Dawson J ruled in the case of CF Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville that if a form is required under a statute, the provision requires that the applicant make a substantial compliance to the Act.

The Judge accepted the idea that the legislature used the normal language of the citizen. Therefore, he gave effect each word in the statute and understood them in their context.

Judge Tracey believed that the statute’s purpose was determined by the context and language of the relevant provisions.

Judge Tracey agreed with the New South Wales Court of Appeal’s view in Tasker, v Fullwood on the visa application system prescribed by Migration Act and Regulations.

The judge had no doubt about the intention of the legislature. However, the statute did not contain the intended words.

According to him, the legislative intent should be derived from the words actually used and not from what was meant to be said by it. However, they did not say.

Judge Tracey understood that he was limited in his ability to interpret the will of the parliament and had no other options.

Judge Tracey therefore knew that there was no basis to speculate about the intentions of legislature. Instead, he had to interpret law by studying the statute as well as trying to form the intended meaning for legislature.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (2017) Austlii.edu.au

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – SECT 25Ccompliance With Formulas (2017) Austlii.edu.au

LA304 – Topic 3 – Principles Relating The Interpretation Of Statutes. (2017) Vanuatu.usp.ac.fj

Migration Regulations 1994 – Schedule 1Classes For Visa (2017) Austlii.edu.au

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HC 28

Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Open chat
1
Hello Good Friend
40% OFF on your Assignments.
How can we help you today?

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code TWENTYTWENTY50