Letter of Advice on Exceptional Circumstances for Visa Extension in Australia

This letter of advice explains exceptional circumstances for visa extension in Australia. It discusses the policy, statutory interpretation, extrinsic materials, and application failure. It also provides a bibliography of relevant cases and acts. Contact us for further assistance.

Migration Law

Letter of Advice
To
Name: Please Insert
Address: Please Insert
Date: Please Insert
Exceptional circumstances
In this letter, the term “exceptional circumstances” would be explained to you with reference
to your application made for the extension of the visa for the purpose of your stay in
Australia. Unfortunately your application for such extension in relation to your stay has not
been accepted by the designated official entrusted with the affairs pertaining to migration.
The reason for such rejection is the non-fulfillment of the exceptional circumstances as laid
out by Sub-clause 2 of Clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations of 1994. The term
“exceptional circumstances” means that the events which have taken place are beyond the
control of an average person. Such events are to take place in an untimely manner. Similar
chain of events took place in the Yassa case thereby resulting in the rejection of the
application for the extension of the stay in Australia for the applicant by the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal of Australia1. In this case, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
found out that the conditions for exceptional circumstances under Sub-clause 2 of Clause
600.215 of the Migration Regulations of 1994 were not met by the applicant accordingly. As
a result, you need to satisfy the requirements of Sub-clause 2 of Clause 600.215 of the
Migration Regulations of 1994 with reference to “exceptional circumstances” thereby
presenting an in-depth analysis of the facts and circumstances of your case. It would help you
in a significant manner to prepare your case in order to be provided with a comprehensive
solution in a satisfactory manner. As a result, the scenario in your case must imply
exceptional circumstances thereby stating that the events have occurred beyond your control
and you did not expect such events to take place.
1 Yassa (Migration) [2019] AATA 1078

Policy
The policy which has been taken into consideration in your case is the Procedures Advice
Manual in order to apply the term “exceptional circumstances” as far as its meaning is
concerned. Such a policy has been formulated and implemented by the Department of
Immigration in order to govern the aspect of immigration in Australia as far as the application
of Department of Immigration. The grounds related, to serious illness, grievous injuries or
death of close family member of the applicant are key factors of “exceptional circumstances”
with reference to the extension of stay in Australia. The health in relation to the physical or
mental well-being of the applicant is also a tenet of “exceptional circumstances” as per the
policy. Additionally, you can also take into consideration the change in the circumstances of
your case which were not under your control thereby being aided in your defence in case you
wish to challenge the decision made by the official concerned which led to the rejection of
your application. You also need to furnish conclusive proof that returning to your home
country would lead to the aggravating of problems and issues based on your medical
condition related to grievous injury as imperative from the policy. Such a policy was also
taken into consideration by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia in the Yassa
case where it was concluded that the policy is just a guideline to be followed and not to be
used for statutory interpretation. In this matter, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of
Australia further asserted upon such conclusion by taking account of the decision made by
the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in the case of Wang v Minister of Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs2. As a result, it is imperative that the policy plays an
important role in the application of the term “exceptional circumstances”.
Statutory interpretation
The plain meaning rule has been followed and taken into consideration in your case as far as
the principles of statutory interpretation are concerned. Such a rule is quite feasible in order
to determine the meaning of the words enshrined in the provision of the respective statute or
legislation. As a result, the plain meaning rule of interpretation implies that the words are to
be interpreted as per their general meaning as far as the language of the statute is concerned
on the basis of the scenario in question as far as providing a comprehensive solution to the
aggrieved party is concerned. In this regard, the literal meaning of the term “exceptional
2 Wang v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 918

circumstances” is to be taken into consideration for your case accordingly as far as the facts
and circumstances of your situation is concerned. The plain meaning rule of statutory
interpretation was followed in the Yassa case where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of
Australia referred to the case of Wang v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs with regard to the interpretation of the term “exceptional circumstances”
in accordance with Section 137 L of the Migration Act of 1958 taking into account the plain
meaning rule of statutory interpretation3. In the case of Repatriation Commission v Kohn4, the
Federal Court of Australia in consideration of the plain meaning rule of interpretation laid
emphasis over the term “operational service” with regard to its implication in terms of the
Veterans’ Entitlements Act of 1986 as far as the aspect of availability of pensions for retired
armed forces personnel is concerned with regard to Sub-section 6 of Section 1 of the
Veterans’ Entitlements Act of 1986. As a result, the importance of plain meaning rule of
statutory interpretation is justified as far as your case is concerned5.
Extrinsic materials
The extrinsic materials which have been referred to in your case include President’s Direction
on Conducting Migration and Refugee Reviews along with the cases of Wang v Minister of
Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, An v Minister for Immigration and
Citizenship6 and Hatcher v Cohn7. Such extrinsic materials were also used by the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia in the Yassa case in order to provide assistance
to the member of the Tribunal in the desired manner as far as the result of the case is
concerned. These extrinsic materials seem to play an important role with regard to the term
“exceptional circumstances”. Any substantial question of law would also be addressed as per
the usage of such kinds of extrinsic materials thereby implying the comprehensive solution in
the case concerned. As a result, such kinds of extrinsic materials are extremely vital with
3 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 1958 s. 137 L
4 Repatriation Commission v Kohn [1989] FCA 337
5 Veterans’ Entitlements Act (Cth)1986 s.6 (1)
6 An v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCFAC 97
7 Hatcher v Cohn [2004] FCA 1548

regard to the concept of “exceptional circumstances” as far as extension of visa in your case
is concerned. Sub-clause 2 of Clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations of 1994 implies
the grounds of extension as implied by the extrinsic materials used. These extrinsic materials
are the important primary sources of law which are to be referred by courts or judicial
authorities in order to come to a decision in a proper and appropriate manner. As a result, you
need to furnish that the facts and circumstances of your case mostly relate to the meaning of
“exceptional circumstances” as implied by the extrinsic materials aforesaid in order to
validate the granting of your extended visa as per Sub-clause 2 of Clause 600.215 of the
Migration Regulations of 1994. It would aid in the providing of the outcome which would be
to your satisfaction provided that the appropriate grounds are fulfilled8.
Application failed
Your application has not been successful. The reason for the unsuccessful application is that
you have not acted in accordance with the criteria of exceptional circumstances. Sub-clause 2
of Clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations of 1994 stipulates the various categories of
the visas that can be granted with regard to the extension of stay in Australia for a holder of
visitor visa. It is suggested that you need to provide conclusive circumstantial evidence in
relation to your case as far as “exceptional circumstances” are concerned. As a result, you can
apply for extension by the virtue of any of the categories of visas as implied by Sub-clause 2
of Clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations of 1994. Therefore, you need to furnish the
details of the facts and circumstances of your case in an in-depth manner thereby implying a
positive result for you. Additionally, you can also apply for medical visa taking account of
your grievous injury subject to the fulfilment of the conditions applicable. It would be a valid
ground for the extension of your stay in Australia. Additionally, you can also prove that you
are not posing a threat to the security at the national level as far as the mitigation of debarring
your stay in Australia is concerned. Please do not hesitate to contact me with your case as far
as proceeding further is concerned. Your options would be analysed accordingly if you wish
to proceed further with your case.
8 Migration Regulations (Cth) 1994 cl. 600.215 (2)

Bibliography
An v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCFAC 97
Hatcher v Cohn [2004] FCA 1548
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 1958 s. 137 L
Migration Regulations (Cth) 1994 cl. 600.215 (2)
Repatriation Commission v Kohn [1989] FCA 337
Veterans’ Entitlements Act (Cth)1986 s.6 (1)
Wang v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 918
Yassa (Migration) [2019] AATA 1078