Case Study on Immigration Law

This case study examines the legal intricacies of the Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship case, focusing on the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 and the regulations surrounding visa applications. The appellant's attempt to lodge a visa application via facsimile was deemed invalid due to non-compliance with prescribed methods, highlighting the strict adherence to migration regulations. The court's decision underscores the importance of following established procedures in immigration law.

Running head: IMMIGRATION LAW
Immigration Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1
IMMIGRATION LAW
Question 1
Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 976
The issue which was released by the appeal in this case was related to providing
Proper meaning to the sections of the migration Act 1958 along with the migration
regulations 1994. The facts of the appeal were not in dispute. An application was made by the
appellant to obtain skilled provisional class VC migration visa. According to the provisions
of the act and the regulation the application made by the appellant had to be made within 15th
March 2010. This provision was imposed on her as she only had one substantially visa which
was to expire on that day. The combination of the provisions of section 48 how the migration
at along with regulation 2.12 of the migration regulation was that a person who is unknown
citizen does not have the right to make an application for the skilled migration visa if they do
not hold a substantial visa at the time the application is made. In addition it was acquired by
the regulations that the only way through which and application could be made were through
prepaid post, online or courier delivery1.
The appellant attended the office of the migration agent on 15th March 2010 for the
purpose of completing the applications and lodging via Internet. Because of some technical
reason she was not able to make such lodgement. The Appeal instead took the initiative of
lodging the application through a facsimile transmission to the department of immigration in
Adelaide. This was the only office in Australia where application for the ways and context
could be processed. She got receipt after making the lodgement at 5:01 P.M and 5:24 P.M
respectively. The transaction did not come to the attention of the department and a manual
stamp was applied to it on 16th March.
1 [2011] FCA 976

2
IMMIGRATION LAW
On 9th April she had been notified by the department of immigration that application
has been determined to be invalid because of two reasons. This was because her application
has been received on 16th March and the application has been made by facsimile transmission
which is not provided for in the migration regulations. The federal magistrate Court rejected
application made by the plaintiff with cost and does the paint is not an appeal before the High
Court.
According to Section 45 of the Act visa for a particular class can only be applied by a
non citizen2. According to Section 46 of that the visa application would only be valid if the
application is made in relation to a particular class and in accordance to the criteria provided
by the section further. The section also provides that the visa application has to be made
validly in order to be effective. Section 47 of that for the provides that the Minister must not
consider any application which has not been made in a valid way. Regulation 2.7 of the
migration regulation states that for the purpose of making an application under section 45 and
46 of the act the applicant has to fill the approved form And pay the fees application charges
which are applicable. Schedule 1 of the regulation really sad South specifically in which how
is application for a particular class can be made and also states that an application which is
not made in accordance to search regulations would not be considered as valid. Further it
stated that the application can be made through an online application, by posting the
application or by delivering the application to the department through a registered courier
service3.
It was provided by the appellant that the reasoning provided in Onea v minister4 of
immigration and Fang vs minister of immigration5 would be applicable with equal force
related to the method of lodgement in this case. It was further provided that the federal
2 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
3 Migration regulation 1994 (Cth)
4 (1997) 80 FCR 254
5 (1996) 64 FCR

3
IMMIGRATION LAW
magistrate was not correct towards its finding that the difficulties which was experienced by
the appellant was an intended inconvenience.
In the court of appeal it was acknowledged by the appellant and that she did not make
a visa application in accordance to the prescribed method under regulation 1229(3)(a). It was
further provided that she attempted the different method because of a failed attempts to
launch the application via Internet.
The judges in this case provided that it was clear through the wording of the
legislation and the regulation that while making an application for this particular class of visa
an applicant has to be a holder of a substantive visa at the time the application was made. The
judges also found at adhere to the wordings of the regulations that where it is provided that
only the prescribed methods of lodgement would be considered as valid no other method can
be accepted as a valid method for lodgement. In addition it was provided by the judges that if
the Parliament intended to allow any other form of lodgement they would have clearly
mentioned it in the regulation. An absence of any such provision provides clearly that the
Parliament only intended to accept visa applications so the prescribed lodgement methods.
It further provided by the judges that after reading the provisions of that and
regulations it is clear that the Parliament only intended to allow an application for this class
of visa through form 866 and by no other method. Therefore the Minister is Forbidden from
considering any other method of application other than through this form. The findings of the
judges had been further supported by the note provided in the migration regulations which
stated that any application which is not made in accordance to the methods set out in this
schedule should not be considered as a valid application. An attempt was made by the
appellant to make a distinction between the present case along with the case of Feng and onea
cases by stating that both the cases were not related to the particular method of lodgement.

4
IMMIGRATION LAW
However the court provided that both the cases and taken into consideration provisions which
was equivalent to item 1229(1).
The method which was used by the court of statutory interpretation for the purpose of
coming to a decision in this case was Section 5 of the interpretation Act 1999. The court did
not consider section 25 of the Act because it did not find it relevant in accordance to the case.
According to Section 5 of that plain meaning has to be provided to the provisions by taking
into account the whole purpose of the provision along with any design, notes, and graphics
associated with it. The court took into consideration the note provided by the regulations
which clearly stated that any other form of application would not be accepted to bring out the
intention of the Parliament and to give effect to this case. Therefore the Appeal of the appeal
and was dismissed by the court with cost.

5
IMMIGRATION LAW
References
Fang v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 64 FCR
Migration Act 1994 (Cth)
Migration Regulation 1958 (Cth)
Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 976
Onea v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 80 FCR 254