Family Visa Application: Legal Advice for Reethi and Roman's Case

This report provides legal advice to Reethi and Roman regarding their family visa options in Australia, focusing on the protection visa (subclass 866). The analysis considers their specific circumstances, including Reethi's existing visa, pregnancy, and potential health issues. It examines the eligibility criteria for the protection visa, referencing relevant case laws and the Migration Act 1958. The report assesses whether Reethi meets the requirements for the visa, considering her situation as an Indian citizen, her marriage to an Australian resident, and her medical needs. It highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence and complying with migration laws. The report concludes that Reethi is likely eligible for the protection visa and offers guidance on the application process, advising them on the necessary documentation and legal considerations. It also emphasizes that Reethi should provide all legal information to the department for consideration. The report also mentions the implications of onshore and offshore visa options including bridging visa implications. The report also cites relevant case laws such as Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim and Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs.

FAMILY VISA
Name of the author-
[DATE]

To Reethi and Roman,
Subject: - Letter for providing advice to Reethi and Roman regarding visa option of Reethi’s.
The option which has been provided is related to both onshore and offshore which includes the
bridging visa implications
Dear Reethi and Roman,
After evaluating your case, it has been found that both of you have been facing a lot of
problems regarding the visa's choices that include the both onshore and offshore and had a
limited area of limitations. However, the problems related to your visa could be resolved and
family migration visa can be given if you disclose the required material information and comply
with the applicable migration laws. Nonetheless, I wanted to convey some of the facts and rules
about the protection 866 visa which you need to comply before applying for a visa under
migration law. It is the visa for those refugees that seek asylum because there is a fear of
persecution in their home country due to race, religion, political opinion, nationality, and
membership of a particular social group. As per the laws and regulations are given under the
Australian Migration Act 1958, it is found that individual who is refugees can apply for the
protection visa.
However, in your case. It is analyzed that in acquiring of the protection 866 visa following things
will be considered such as whether you will be able to get the visa prospectus and whether you
meet the eligibility criteria for the protection 866 visa.
In your case, I have analyzed that if you want to take visa or migrated back then you need
to apply for the visa under 866 visa. This visa is being provided to those people who are ill-
treated in their own country and ask for asylum. The asylum should be provided on the basis of
the individual who is ill-treated because of their religion, nationality, race and views1.
As per the laws and regulations are given in the Australian Migration Act 1958, it has been stated
that the person who is refugees in the country can apply for the protection 866 visa. There is
1 Alison Pert, Helen Chen, and Rhys Carvosso. "'SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection'(2016) 243 FCR 556." (2018) 35(1) Australian Year Book of International Law

precondition on applying for protection visa that the person who is applying for the visa should
be an outsider of Australia but has been working in Australia for a very long time. Those
refugees whose medical treatment is going that can also apply for the protection 866 visa.
However, the individual cannot apply for the visa if there is some condition is applied to his or
her visa. Every person needs to comply with the migration laws and rules before applying for the
visa. The migration laws need to be compiled by the individual for getting visa and application.
However, there are related visa which has been supporting your case and would make you get
the visa such as Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor 2, Chen Shi Hai v
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 3, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural
Affairs v Haji Ibrahim 4, and Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar5
According to this, the Reethi can apply for the visa and the required application and documents
are possessed by her for acquiring the visa.
However, after assessing the following details of the case, it is found that there are some
eligibility criteria that have been required for applying for the protection 866 visa.
 The individual who is applying for the protection visa must have a valid visa and also she had
not entered the country by an unlawful method like the crossing of borders without the visa.
 The compliance had been made with the protection responsibilities/obligations/duty of
Australian laws.
 She needs to be valid individual and free from any of the criminal activity applying for the
protection 866 visa under migration law.
 The concern should in regard to alluring for the protection
 The concerned person should possess the health certificate and character demand
 The ministry should be satisfied that the visa granted is for the public interest
 The individual should not be prohibited by law for getting the visa6
2 (1997) 191 CLR 559
3 (2000) 201 CLR 293
4 (2000) 204 CLR 1
5 (2002) 187 ALR 574
6 Lisa Gleeson. "Australia stands by Israel
after UN condemns illegal settlements." (2017) 11(22) Green Left Weekly

Therefore in Reethi’s case, she is eligible to apply the protection visa application for class XA
subclass 866. Earlier the visa had been declined by the Department of Home Affairs because of
the health requirements. The person who is applying for the visa had to give proof of the medical
examination. In Reethi's case, she was suffering from the Placenta Pravia that required that she
should giver proper proof of that to the authority. In Chan Yee kin v Minister for Immigration
and Ethnic affairs7, the visa had been rejected on not giving the proof for the case8. If proper
proof and details were given that she would have been granted a visa under migration law.
After an analysis of your case, I found certain facts that should be taken in point with the
eligibility required for the protection 866 visa. Reethi is an Indian citizen who had come to
Australia before two and a half years ago on the visa called class FA subclass 600 visitor visa.
According to this, she is an outsider and the visa she possesses is applicable for applying for
another visa. This matches the eligibility criteria for the protection 866 subclass visa. In Minister
for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim9 case it had been found that the visa that
had been provided for the temporarily resident will be deemed valid for applying for the
protection 866 visa
In Reethi's case, the application had been rejected by the department of Home Ministry
about 8 months ago. On rejection, she filed the review application and the reason she mentions
was asking for the protection as if she returned to India she will be forced to marry as she is
already married to an Australian resident Rohan Fitzgerald nine months ago. They are living
together from the last eleven months and also she is seven months pregnant. She was also
suffering from Placenta Pravia and her gynecologist had advised having proper medical care and
her child after birth required proper monitoring by the doctors. In accordance with this, she is
eligible for the protection 866 visa as her health benefits are not good and cannot leave the
country in this situation. Therefore, Reethi and Rohan should not find any difficulties in
applying for the Protection 866 visa. In the case Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural Affairs10, it was held that the protection 866 visa should be given to the persons
7 [1989] HCA 62
8 John Van Kooy , and Dina Bowman. "‘Surrounded with so much uncertainty’: asylum seekers and
manufactured precarity in Australia." (2019) 45(5) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
9 (2000) 204 CLR 1
10 (2000) 201 CLR 293

who are not medically fit but it is required that they must provide proper evidence of their
health11. Therefore, it could be inferred that case the visa that had been provided for the
temporarily resident will be deemed valid for applying for the protection 866 visa.
The above case states that laws and rules related to the migration and visa applied on
Reethi and Roman will be of Migration Act of Australia. They both need to comply with the
migration laws and rules. All these migration and visa laws need to be compiled by the Reethi in
order to get both onshore and offshore visa. After assessing the case, it is found that Reethi can
get the visa and she is totally eligible for the same. The basic criteria that she required protection
under migration law. As per the case, Reethi is eligible for protection and required medical
treatment which is necessary for her treatment as suggested by her gynecologist. In addition to
this, her child is also in need of proper monitoring by the doctors. The Roman is an Australian
resident and therefore she is eligible for the permanent visa. The main reason for her permanent
visa is that she is married to the person resident of that country. Therefore it can be said that
Reethi’s is eligible for getting the protection visa application for class XA subclass 866. She will
not be denied if she discloses all the legal information to the department.
Therefore, after analyzing your case, it is suggested that Reethi will be eligible for the Visa and
she could easily get migrated in another country.
If, you think my advice is helpful to you then please revert back with the necessary details.
THANKING YOU,
XYZ
Migration Agent
11 Mary crock and Kate Bones. "Australian
exceptionalism: temporary protection and the rights of refugees." (2015) 16(3) Melb. J. Int'l L. 522.

Bibliography
Case Laws
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1
Chan Yee kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic affairs [1989] HCA 62
Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 201 CLR 293
Journal
Pert, Alison, Helen Chen, and Rhys Carvosso. "'SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection'(2016) 243 FCR 556." (2018) 35(1) Australian Year Book of International Law 35
263.
Van Kooy, John, and Dina Bowman. "‘Surrounded with so much uncertainty’: asylum seekers
and manufactured precarity in Australia." (2019) 45(5) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
693-710.
Crock, Mary, and Kate Bones. "Australian exceptionalism: temporary protection and the rights
of refugees." (2015) 16(3) Melb. J. Int'l L. 522.
Gleeson, Lisa. "Australia stands by Israel after UN condemns illegal settlements." (2017) 11(22)
Green Left Weekly 8.
Legislation
Migration Act 1958