Letter of Advice for Reethi and Rohan regarding Reethi's visa options

This letter provides advice to Reethi and Rohan regarding Reethi's visa options, including offshore and onshore options and bridging visa implications.

LETTER OF ADVICE
Name of the Student-
[DATE]
Toshiba

LETTER OF ADVICE
To Reethi and Roman,
Subject: - Letter of advice to Reethi and Rohan regarding Reethi’s visa option, both onshore and
offshore including the bridging visa implications
Dear Reethi and Rohan,
After a reasonable evaluation of your case, I have found some issues regarding Reethi’s visa
choices, including both offshore and onshore area based intimations. Therefore, the following
opinion is stated as below:-
As a registered migration representative, it is found that both of you would face the following
problems in the process.
1) Acquiring the protection 866 visa
2) Whether or not you will be able to thrive through visa prospectus
3) Whether you are eligible for the visa or not
I will like to tell you details regarding the concerning the protection 866 visa. This is a
type of visa which is issued to outcasts’ persons accompanied with the quest of asylum. These
persons are of free of ill-treatment in their own country. The reason behind the ill-treatment to
such outcasts is being there religion, views, race, and nationality of a particular group (Minister
for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim)1.
1 (2000) 204 CLR 1

LETTER OF ADVICE
According to Australian Migration Act 1958, individuals who are held as refugees can
make an appeal for the protection visa. In order to get the protection visa precondition for
migration, they are required to outcasts to reside and work in Australia permanently. Those
refugees should also get accessed to Medicare and services which are center linked. In some
cases, an individual is restrained from applying for second visa apart from the protection visa2.
This case visibly shows that Reethi is entitled to apply herself for visa and she also
possess all the applications or documents needs for acquiring the visa.
However, justifications regarding the eligibility criteria have been given as below
The eligibility criteria for getting a visa is given below and Reethi has to comply by these
terms.
 Provided that the person should possess the valid visa leaving in Australia and should not have
any unauthorized or unlawful marine entry
 Person should comply with protections responsibility/obligations/duty of Australian laws
 The concern should be alluring for the protection
 Proof of individual showing that the person is an outcasts and the concern should comply with
the requirements of the Australia Migration Act
 Concerned person should possess the proper health and character demand
 Minister should be made satisfied about issuance of the visa that it is in public interest(not
harmful to the public)
2 Peter Hughes , and Arja Keski-Nummi. "BEYOND OPERATION SOVEREIGN BORDERS A LONG-
TERM ASYLUM POLICY FOR AUSTRALIA." (2016)35(5)Journal OF Mgration Affairs

LETTER OF ADVICE
 The person should not be prohibited by the law from getting the visa (not barred or suspended by
the law) (Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar) 3
Therefore, in Reethi’s case she is eligible for the protection visa application Class XA subclass
866, earlier which was declined by the Department of Home Affairs under the character and
health requirements (Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs). It is a
pre-requisite for person to submit proofs regarding medical examinations which can safeguard
the protection of the individual along with the Australian group (people having a common
mindset). (Chan Yee kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic affairs) Partner, parent’s
dependent children, your children or other dependent eligible relatives can be included in
applications for visa. As per section 65 (1) of Act the decision so made should be satisfied
with the criteria4.
There are number of cases which have provided the rules and law for the protection visa.
These are,5, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim , and Minister for
Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar who helps individual for the migration visa and
legal compliance (Davern, Warr, Block, La Brooy, Taylor, & Hosseini, 2016).
After analysis of your case under the light of existing facts and application of rules, following
points are found out:-
Reethi is an Indian citizen and before 2 and a half years ago she came to Australia on the class
FA subclass 600 visitor. Her visa validity is for 6 months. This validity of visa shows her that she
has valid visa to visit Australia. Those who make an application for the visa gets the visa. She
3 (2002) 187 ALR 574
4 Alison Pert , Helen Chen, and Rhys Carvosso. "'SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection'(2016) 243 FCR 556." (2018) 35(1) Australian Year Book of International Law
5 (2000) 201 CLR 293

LETTER OF ADVICE
has applied for protection visa application XA subclass 866 after arriving to Australia. She can
apply for it as it was mentioned in the migration rules. But her application was refused by the
department 8 months ago. After refusal of her application, she filed a review application. The
reason given by Reethi is that, her parents want her to marry a boy of their choice (arrange
marriage), but she had already been married to an Australian resident named Rohan Fitzgerald
nine months ago. They both are living together past eleven months. Reethi is pregnant for seven
months. Reethi’s gynecologist has told her that she is having the Placenta Pravia and proper
medical care should be given to her and the her child will also be monitored by the doctors after
birth for some reasonable time.
As per the laws of the migration, it can be suggested that she has come on the FA
subclass which is the temporary visa for the students who come for a temporary period to
Australia. As per the criteria for eligibility a person possessing a valid visa can apply for the
protection but the condition for that is the person has not came to Australia for any illegal
purpose. This means that Reethi is eligible enough for getting the visa she needs to meet all the
protection responsibilities. In this case study, it was interpreted that Reethi was appealing to get
the protection because if she goes back then her parents will get her married to the person of
their choice. Her visa was also free from any 8503 condition i.e. she is not restrained or
suspended from getting a visa. In this instance, she is eligible to get visa and demand regarding
the health problems are met by her gynecologist, which stated about that she is having a placent
pravia. Both Reethi and the child (after birth) needs regular monitoring by the doctor. According
to the rule, Reethi only needs proof the medical examination which will be made available to her
by her doctor so she can apply for the visa as she is possessing all the medical reports which help
her in passing the pre-requisite for availing the visa. Some cases related to this are chan Yee Kin

LETTER OF ADVICE
v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic affairs, Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo
& Anor etc. these cases concluded that Reethi could easily get visa in the desired country but
pre-condition for it is that she has to comply with visa migration rules and laws of domestic
country.
These above mentioned cases put the light on the rules, regulations and laws of the migration law
which need to be complied by Reethi and Roman for getting the visa both onshore & offshore
inculcating the joining of applications during the time of applying for the visa. Therefore it can
be concluded that Reethi is eligible to get the visa. Reethi is demanding for protection as her
health conditions are not good and she can’t marry to other person as per her parents’ choice as
she is already married with the Australian citizen Roman Fitzgerald. These are the problems
/facts which are not allowing her to go back to her home country India. Further to it, Reethi is
complying with the rules and laws of the immigration act, which forms the basis/ground on
which she can get the visa easily6.
As provided by Reethi had a visa Class FA subclass 600 visitor visa which had a validity of three
months, although she had applied for a Class XA subclass 866 protection visa which had been
refused eight months ago. There are some Visa options still available for her as she is residing in
Australia and married to you.
Some of the Visa Options available are mentioned hereunder:
1. Bridging Visa A (BVA)
6 John Van Kooy , and Dina Bowman. "‘Surrounded with so much uncertainty’: asylum seekers and
manufactured precarity in Australia." (2019) 45(5) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

LETTER OF ADVICE
This is a temporary visa which will allow her to stay in Australia after expiry of the substantive
visa and the substantive visa application is under progress. But, this visa will not allow her to
return if she leaves Australia.
2. Bridging Visa B (BVB)
This is also a temporary visa, it will allow her to leave and return to Australia within a specified
time period while her application for a substantive visa is under progress. This option is good if
she wants to go to India for letting her parents know about her marital status and to clear other
issues.
3. Bridging Visa C(BVC)
This is again a temporary visa which will allow your wife to stay in Australia for the time her
Australia. A BVC may be granted by the appropriate authority after lodging an application in
Australia.
Process time of the above mentioned Visa Options is very less, this may take some time at the
process is complex. However, it will be quick if:
 The application is filled correctly.
 All the required documents are provided.
 Timely responds are made to the requests made.
If, you find me helpful anyway in easing the transition, then please do not feel temporize to call

LETTER OF ADVICE
THANKING YOU,
XYZ
Migration Agent
BIBLOGRAPHY
CASE LAWS:-
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 187 ALR 574 (Davern, Warr,
Block, La Brooy, Taylor, & Hosseini, 2016).
JOURNAL:
Pert, Alison, Helen Chen, and Rhys Carvosso. "'SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection'(2016) 243 FCR 556." (2018) 35(1) Australian Year Book of International Law 35
263.
Van Kooy, John, and Dina Bowman. "‘Surrounded with so much uncertainty’: asylum seekers
and manufactured precarity in Australia." (2019) 45(5) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
693-710.

LETTER OF ADVICE
Hughes, Peter, and Arja Keski-Nummi. "BEYOND OPERATION SOVEREIGN BORDERS A
LONG-TERM ASYLUM POLICY FOR AUSTRALIA." (2016)35(5)Journal OF Mgration
Affairs