logo

Immigration Law - Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship| Report

6 Pages1273 Words55 Views
   

University of Leicester

   

Immigration Law (LW3460)

   

Added on  2020-02-24

About This Document

LW3460 - In this report, we will explore Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship FCA 976, which is based on Immigration Law. In this instance, the problem raised by the appeal was how to give proper meaning to parts of the Migration Act of 1958 and the Migration Regulations of 1994.

Immigration Law - Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship| Report

   

University of Leicester

   

Immigration Law (LW3460)

   Added on 2020-02-24

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: IMMIGRATION LAWImmigration LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor note
Immigration Law - Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship| Report_1
1IMMIGRATION LAWQuestion 1Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 976The issue which was released by the appeal in this case was related to providingProper meaning to the sections of the migration Act 1958 along with the migrationregulations 1994. The facts of the appeal were not in dispute. An application was made by theappellant to obtain skilled provisional class VC migration visa. According to the provisionsof the act and the regulation the application made by the appellant had to be made within 15thMarch 2010. This provision was imposed on her as she only had one substantially visa whichwas to expire on that day. The combination of the provisions of section 48 how the migrationat along with regulation 2.12 of the migration regulation was that a person who is unknowncitizen does not have the right to make an application for the skilled migration visa if they donot hold a substantial visa at the time the application is made. In addition it was acquired bythe regulations that the only way through which and application could be made were throughprepaid post, online or courier delivery1.The appellant attended the office of the migration agent on 15th March 2010 for thepurpose of completing the applications and lodging via Internet. Because of some technicalreason she was not able to make such lodgement. The Appeal instead took the initiative oflodging the application through a facsimile transmission to the department of immigration inAdelaide. This was the only office in Australia where application for the ways and contextcould be processed. She got receipt after making the lodgement at 5:01 P.M and 5:24 P.Mrespectively. The transaction did not come to the attention of the department and a manualstamp was applied to it on 16th March.1[2011] FCA 976
Immigration Law - Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship| Report_2
2IMMIGRATION LAWOn 9th April she had been notified by the department of immigration that applicationhas been determined to be invalid because of two reasons. This was because her applicationhas been received on 16th March and the application has been made by facsimile transmissionwhich is not provided for in the migration regulations. The federal magistrate Court rejectedapplication made by the plaintiff with cost and does the paint is not an appeal before the HighCourt. According to Section 45 of the Act visa for a particular class can only be applied by anon citizen2. According to Section 46 of that the visa application would only be valid if theapplication is made in relation to a particular class and in accordance to the criteria providedby the section further. The section also provides that the visa application has to be madevalidly in order to be effective. Section 47 of that for the provides that the Minister must notconsider any application which has not been made in a valid way. Regulation 2.7 of themigration regulation states that for the purpose of making an application under section 45 and46 of the act the applicant has to fill the approved form And pay the fees application chargeswhich are applicable. Schedule 1 of the regulation really sad South specifically in which howis application for a particular class can be made and also states that an application which isnot made in accordance to search regulations would not be considered as valid. Further itstated that the application can be made through an online application, by posting theapplication or by delivering the application to the department through a registered courierservice3.It was provided by the appellant that the reasoning provided in Onea v minister4 ofimmigration and Fang vs minister of immigration5 would be applicable with equal forcerelated to the method of lodgement in this case. It was further provided that the federal2Migration Act 1958 (Cth)3Migration regulation 1994 (Cth)4(1997) 80 FCR 2545(1996) 64 FCR
Immigration Law - Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship| Report_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Reasons for the Court Ruling in the Case of Khan V Minister for Immigration
|7
|1907
|185

Implications of Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
|9
|2264
|100

Implications of Ram v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018]
|7
|1277
|371

BLO5607 : Visa Compliance, Cancellation and Review
|5
|886
|54

Implications of Ram v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1068
|6
|1135
|383

Karan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
|5
|1125
|63