Migration Law

Running Head: MIGRATION LAW
Migration Law
Student’s Name
University Name
Author’s Note

2
MIGRATION LAW
Question 1: Implications
The case of Beni versus The Immigration and Border Protection Minister (2018) FCAFC is an
appeal which has been preferred from case of Beni versus Border Protection and Immigration
Minister (2018) FCAFC 756. The institution of this appeal has been done in context to time
extensions for filling of the applications for the merit’s review with the Tribunals of
Administrative appeals. This appeal counter argues the Federal Circuit Court’s decision1. The
court dismissed a review of the judicial nature to be enacted in context to the decision which has
been provided by the tribunal. In this case, the tribunal denied the power to interrogate the visa
Cancelation decision, made from the end of the minister in lieu of Temporary Business Entry
(Class UC) (Sub-class BCD) visa2. The tribunal nullified the appellant’s claim on ground of the
specified time within which appellants can apply under the section 347 of Migration Act of 1994
(Cth). This section holds that the appellants can issue challenge against minister’s decision of
visa cancellation within a week to be counted onwards from the day when appellant had been
informed of such a cancellation.
The court provided an epoch making judgment for this case in context to the Australian
Immigration history. This case made the consequences of any appeal very clear when the
minister’s decision have been challenged regarding any act of visa cancellation, after lapse of the
stipulated time specified by section 347 of Migration Regulations, 1958, within which the appeal
should have been made3.
Moreover, the Federal Court’s judicial authority encompasses the power to review the tribunal’s
decision. However, this applies only when any jurisdictional error have been committed from the
1 The Migration Act 1958
2 Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 756
3 The Migration Act 1958

3
MIGRATION LAW
end of the tribunal. However, the federal court do not have the jurisdictional power of critiquing
the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and question the validity of the minister’s
decision for that reason regarding visa cancellation4.
Lastly, this case reduced the count of the unimportant and delayed proceedings which
appealed against the visa cancellation.
Question 2
1)
In this case, the question is which bridging visa Joseph would be holding if the visa of the
student had been cancelled 35 days ago and no application had been done for reviewing the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The bridging visa in Australia is analogous to a temporary
permission granted for staying in the mainland for a specific time period. This visa is being
granted when the substantive visa has been expired and the concerned person is awaiting
application for another visa. Examples of such visa include Student’s Visa.
On ground of a direct application, the Home Affairs department would grant a bridging
visa. Such visas allow foreigners to stay in Australia if they are planning to depart soon or
awaiting for permanent migration. In this context, Joseph was notified that his students’ visa had
been cancelled under section 16 of Migration Regulations 19585. He arrived in Queensland 1
year ago on being granted with Class TU subclass 500 student’s visa6. In case after the end of his
visa tenure, he did not apply for review, he would be liable to hold a bridging E visa. Hence, it
4 Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 756
5 The Migration Act 1958
6 The Migration Act 1958