logo

BLO5607 : Visa Compliance, Cancellation and Review

5 Pages886 Words54 Views
   

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

   

Visa Compliance (BLO5607)

   

Added on  2020-04-29

BLO5607 : Visa Compliance, Cancellation and Review

   

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

   

Visa Compliance (BLO5607)

   Added on 2020-04-29

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: MIGRATION LAWMigration LawName of the studentName of the UniversityAuthor note
BLO5607 : Visa Compliance, Cancellation and Review_1
1MIGRATION LAWFacts and Background In the case of Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 375, theappellant had been provided with the notification by the department of immigration withrespect to the reviews of a visa application. Generally there were five places at which anapplication could be made by the applicant in relation to the refusal of the visa. However theabove mentioned notification only content two places where the application for Visa refusalcould be made. After about 5 months when the letter had been send the appellant hardlaunched a review application with respect to the decision of the delegate in theadministrative appeal Tribunal. The application was not heard by the Tribunal and stated thatit had been received outside the time provided by regulation 4.10(1)(a) of the MigrationRegulation 19941. The appeal had been allowed by the court and the order made by thefederal magistrate judge had been set aside. The court also issued a writ of mandamus andorder the respondent to pay the appellants cost2. The reasons for decision According to Section 66(2)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the notice had tocontain all the places where and review application can be made by the applicant. However itwas held by the magistrate Court that providing to location where the application could bemade was enough to comply with the provisions provided in section 66(2)(d)(iv)3. Accordingto the Interpretation Act 1901 Section 15AA while interpreting any provisions of legislationthe meaning should be provided in such a way so as to achieve the object or purpose of thelegislation4. The federal court in its ruling stated that the object of the legislation was only toprovide a place where the application could be made.1 the Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth) at Reg. 4.10(1)(a)2 [2010] FCA 3753The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) at section 66(2)(d)(iv).4 Interpretation Act 1901 at Section 15AA
BLO5607 : Visa Compliance, Cancellation and Review_2

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

Immigration Law - Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship| Report
|6
|1273
|55

Migration Law
|7
|1580
|42

Migration Review Mechanism - Cases
|8
|1491
|26

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