Analysis Of Partner Visa Assesment

Running head: ANALYSIS OF PARTNER VISA
Immigration
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

ANALYSIS OF PARTNER VISA 2
Introduction
The visa application for the immigrant to Australia through migration regulations 1994
stipulate specific criteria which may be waived or found not to apply on the ground of
compelling or compassionate considerations. Therefore, the compelling or compassionate
circumstance to waive the requirement based on the public interest criterion (PIC) 4020. In the
review of Le v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 2167 (12 August 2019), a case was
explaining partner visa application. The applicant is Ms. Thi Linh Le ("Ms. Le"). Ms. Le applied
seeking judicial review on the first decision made by the respondent, the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection ("Minister"). Ms. Le wanted the court to review the dismissal
of Ms. Le's application for a Partner (Temporary) (class UK) (subclass) ("Partner Visa") by the
Minister. She also wanted the court to review the second decision that could allow her to make a
valid Partner Visa application. The aim of the paper will, therefore, analyze the facts and the
rules and then conclude as to why the judicial review by court faulted on the decision made by
delegates.
Issues
As an agent of Ms. Le, my client Ms. Le (Vietnamese), met Mr. Brennan Morrison ("Mr.
Morrison") (an Australian), and they fall in love. They then decided to marry. To do this, Ms. Le
had to apply for a fiancé visa that could allow him to live with her lover in Australia. The initial
application was rejected based on the fact that it was not possible given Mr. Morrison had not
finalized the divorce with his first wife. After returning to Vietnam, Ms. Le learned that she was
pregnant and had to return to Australia through the Visitor Visa (Vogl, 2015).

ANALYSIS OF PARTNER VISA 3
Consequently, the visa which was given to Ms. Le was to expire in August (Tham,
Campbell, & Boese, 2016). They later applied for a waiver of conditions due to what they
termed as compelling circumstances and stated that they were going to apply for the partner visa.
Their application for exemption was granted, and in October, Ms. Le gave birth, and they asked
for a partner visa based on compelling her circumstances. Meanwhile, since the waiver terms
were about to end, they applied for another waiver. The delegate dismissed both the partner visa
application and the waiver application. However, the judicial review stated that the basis for
dismissal was not correct. Therefore, the analysis should demonstrate how the decision by the
judicial review was arrived at by the judge in making the judgment (Simmons, O’Brien, David,
& Beacroft, 2013).
Rules/ Principles of Statutory Interpretations that were used
The delegate used the controls on s. (7A) of the Migration Act (Schloenhardt, & Martin,
2012). The law states that the conditions found in Visitor Visa can be changed; thus, the court
used this to dismiss the partner application. .Section (7A) of the Migration Act, which prevents a
person in the migration zone, was also used to justify the dismissal of the partner. One of the
conditions in the Visitor Visa was "No Further Stay." The rule states that unless the requirement
is waived, the visa holder cannot apply for significant visa classes such as a partner visa. The
delegate argued that although the child born has right not to be separated by both parents under
the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), it does not outweigh the fact that Ms. Le does
not meet all criteria (Schloenhardt, & Hickson, 2013).
Initial delegate decision

ANALYSIS OF PARTNER VISA 4
The visa application in Australia is based on jurisdiction made in Australia. For instance,
the first decision, according to Australia, indicates that the visa becomes invalid when the
applicant is subjected to Visitor Visa overstayed in Australia without stating prompt reason
afterward (Vrachnas, Bagaric, Dimopoulos, & Pathinayake, 2011). Consequently, my client that
is Ms. Le, who initially applied Visitor Visa to pass, later reapplied for the partner visa.
However, based on precise circumstances that coincidently meet Ms. Le, I request on behalf of
her so that she can be granted justice just like any local citizen of Australia (Pickering, & Weber,
2012). Through the interpretation of the validity of visa application, as illustrated in the section
(7A) of the migration Act, shows that the Visa application is valid if the visitor stays within the
migration zone and will not grant any other substantive visa, while the holder remains in
Australia. Accordingly, my point of clarification about my client is still not violated any law
based on the fact she is having unborn, who is a citizen of Australia by birth (Opeskin, 2012).
However, Ms. Le asked the court for judicial review. The judicial review used most of
the sections from the Migration Act and regulations to make the judgment. Concerning the law
of the land and under the jurisdiction of the Australia authority, it clear that the Visitor visa,
which is subjected to the condition and someone has no control over them, is treated differently.
This is in line with 8(8) (b) of the regulatory acts. Therefore, as an agent of the victim, I feel a
further review should be rendered to my client (Klein, 2014).
Decision made by Minister
As cited by Horner, Wood, and Kelly, (2013) reiterated that Partner Visa application was
invalid. This is because the waiver application had not been granted before the lodgment of the
Partner Visa application. It was established of the Migration Act only deals with how to decide
the validity of the certificate and not the decision on whether to grant or refuse the visa. This act