Chen v Minister Case: Implications for Migration Agents and System

This assignment provides a detailed analysis of the Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 133 case, a significant ruling in Australian Migration Law. The analysis focuses on the validity of visa applications, legislative compliance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and the implications for migration agents. The case revolves around an applicant whose visa application was initially deemed invalid due to arriving at the designated GPO box after her existing visa's expiry. The court's decision, favoring the applicant, hinged on the interpretation of what constitutes an 'office of immigration' and the acceptance of applications via the designated postal address. Furthermore, the assignment includes a file note addressing the legislative requirements impacting an individual's ability to apply for a visa while in Australia, specifically focusing on visa condition 8503 and the possibility of its waiver under compelling circumstances as per the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Running Head: MIGRATION LAW
Migration Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1MIGRATION LAW
Question 1
The case of Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 133
is a significant case in relation to Migration Law in Australia. The primary notion in relation to
which the case had been brought before the court was related to the discussion about the validity
of an application for a visa to a place nominated by the minister1. The question was to assess the
legislative compliance of the application as per the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The primary aim
of the essay is to identify and discuss the applications of this case with respect to the practice of
migration agents. The paper also highlights the way in which the Australia legal system
functions in relation to the Migration Law.
In the given case the applicant was an holder of a visa which was about to get expired in
December 18, 2012. The applicant wanted to apply for a subclass 892 visa. With respect to the
provisions of 1104B(3)(f) of Sch 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994 the applicant needed to
have a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class UR) visa for making the application for 892 visa2. As
a result of the provisions there has been a requirement for the applicant to launch the application
before December 18, 2012 which is the expiry date of her visa. The department prescribed that
the application needs to be either by courier to the street address of the centre at Adelaide or at
skill processing centre by post at GPO Box 2399. The visa application had been posted on 17th
December but it reached the migration office by 19 December by the time the visa had expired.
In this case the decision had been made by the court in the favour of the applicant. There
were three grounds on which the applications had been made by the applicant. However the third
ground of appeal had been rejected by the court and the decision had been made based on ground
1 Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 133
2 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

2MIGRATION LAW
1 and 2. The court issued a writ of certiorari which defeated the decision of the minister that the
application was not considered to valid.
There were three grounds of appeal in relation to which the application was made. Firstly
the applicant argued that there was a error made by the primary judge with respect to his decision
that a valid application had not been made at a office of immigration as defined under reg
2.10(2A)(b) as the application had been received at the GPO box of the department on 18th
December. The second ground stated that the primary judge should have held that the GPO box
was an office of immigration or its part and the application which had been made was a valid
application as under reg 2.10(2A)(b) of the MR3 as the application had been received at the GPO
box of the department on 18th December. The third ground of appeal stated that it should have
been held by the primary judge that the rules under reg 2.10(2A)(b) will be satisfied if substantial
compliance have been made and there was substantial compliance made by the appellants as the
application had been received at the GPO box of the department on 18th December.
The court stated that the GPO box which the department had leased to receive visa
application and thus it was a place for business or place for transaction of business. The
arrangement of the department stipulated that among various methods by which application
could be made it was also allowed to be made by a written application to the GPO box. Thus it is
correctly stated on the part of the applicant that the even where GPO is not a alone office as per
the reg 2.10it is a part of the department office. Thus the application which has been made is a
valid application at law. The court however rejected the third ground of appeal based in statutory
interpretation principles.
3 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 2.10(2A)(b)

3MIGRATION LAW
The case as per the above discussion has a significant impact in the process of the way in
which a visa application will be valid. The court has clarified through its decision that legislative
compliance is important for the purpose of making a visa application. It was a also clarified by
the court that the visa application will be deemed to be made when it has actually been received
by express post at the GPO box as stipulated by the minister although the application had not
been stamped until the next day. It can also be stated that the Australian legal system in relation
to migration law also functions based in the principles of statutory interpretation as provided by
the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).
Question 2
To
The supervisor
Sub – The legislative requirements which will have an impact on the ability of Shelley to make a
visa application while she is in Australia.
Respected Sir
This file note is in relation to the legislative requirements which will have an impact on
the ability of Shelley to make a visa application while she is in Australia. It has been provided
through the situation that Shelly is on a visitor’s visa which has a condition 8503 on it. As
provided through the Migration Regulations 1994 sch 8 any person on whom the visa condition
is imposed does not have the right to stay in Australia any further if the visa held by them has
expired4. While having an 8503 condition imposed in a visa a person has no right to make a
further visa application. The only way in which a visa application can be made by a person
4 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) sch 8

4MIGRATION LAW
holding a visa with a condition 8503 is that the condition is waived upon written request by the
Minister under the provisions of section 41 (2) (a) of the Migration Act 19585. The Minister has
a discretion to waive the condition in case the minister is satisfied that since the visa has been
issued to the person there has been some compassionate and compelling circumstances which is
not within the control of the person and has caused significant change in the position of the
person. In the given situation it can be stated that there have been compelling situations which
has changed the position of Shelly since the visa has been issued. She had the right to make the
application for the waiver of the condition 8503. However in the given situation she has not
made a application for the waiver in relation to the condition and the condition cannot be waived
unless an application is made. As the condition was still imposed in the visitor visa held by
Shelly her visa application has been rejected.
Now as the visa application which has been made by Shelly has been rejected, she can
make a fresh visa application. Before a fresh application is made she would have to make an
application for the waiver of condition 8503. For this she would be required to make a written
application under section 41(2) (a) of the MA. The waiver application can only be made if
refused once if the circumstances are different from the previous circumstances. However in the
given situation the rejection of the application has been in relation to a visa and not waiver so
Shelly has the right to waive the visa condition 8503. The request can be made by filling form
1447. It must also be taken into consideration that if the request to waive the condition cannot be
reviewed in terms of the decision.
Here the visa application which has been made by Shelly has been rejected due to the
above mentioned reasons. However she has the right to make an application for the same visa
5 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 41 (2) (a)

5MIGRATION LAW
unless it has not been expressly denied to do so. It has not been provided through the situation
that the visa application of Selly is not restricted. Thus she can make a visa application again but
this time she is required to get the waiver of the condition 8503 before the visa application is
made. In addition it has been provided that the visa application has been rendered invalid and not
reached the decision stage. Thus it would not have any effect in the application after the waiver
of condition 8503 has been granted to Shelly. There is a difference between a visa application
being rejected and a visa application being declared as invalid. The visa application which be
rejected or refused if a valid visa application is made and has been refused for some other
reasons. On the other hand a visa application will be considered to be invalid if it has not
complied with the criteria of making a valid application such as application fees and eligibility of
application.
Thus for the above discussion it can be concluded that the visa application which had
been made by Shelly without waiving condition 8503 has been rightly declared invalid and she
can make an application after the condition is waived.

6MIGRATION LAW
Bibliography
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)