Migration Law Assignment: Ramos v Minister for Immigration Case Report

This report provides a detailed analysis of the case Ramos v. Minister for Immigration, focusing on the legal arguments surrounding the refusal to waive visa condition 8503. The case involved a Philippine citizen seeking a partner visa, facing issues of health, safety concerns related to her ex-husband, and the application of Migration Regulation 2.05(4). The court considered whether the delegate of the Minister correctly interpreted 'compelling and compassionate circumstances' and if the applicant's circumstances, including her relationship and health, met the criteria for a waiver. The report examines the court's findings, emphasizing that circumstances predating the visa grant are not considered for a waiver, and that factors within the applicant's control, such as entering a relationship, do not qualify. The court also addressed the significance of the partner's health and the applicant's fear for her safety. The report concludes that the delegate's decision was correct, highlighting the legal framework and the implications of the court's decision on similar cases. The report also references relevant legislation including the Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994.

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

1
MIGRATION LAW
To
The Client
Respected Sir/Mam
The purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation to you in form of a letter of advice
with respect to the reason of the decision provided by drivers in the case of Ramos v Minister for
Immigration1. The issue before the court in this case was to consider whether condition 8503
imposed on a visa should be waived or not.
In this case the applicant has made an appeal for the Judicial review with respect to a
decision provided by the delegate of the Minister refusing to waive condition 8503 which was
attached to the substantive visa held by the applicant. According to the condition the visa holder
is not allowed to stay in Australia once the visa has come to an end. The applicant was a citizen
of Philippine and had come to Australia on a visitor visa. An application for protection visa made
by the applicant had been refused. The no further stay condition in addition signifies that the
person on whom the condition is imposed is only entitled to apply for a protection visa.
The condition can be waived by the Minister in accordance to Section 41(2A) of the
Migration Act 19582. The circumstances in which the condition may be waived are provided
through Migration Regulations 1994 regulation 2.05 (4)3. According to the regulation the
Minister may waive condition 8503 when compelling and compassionate circumstances have
1 [2017] FCCA 2412
2 Section 41(2A) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
3 Regulation 2.05 (4) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

2
MIGRATION LAW
developed since the person was granted the substantive visa. The visa holders have no control
over such circumstances. The situation has made a major change to the circumstances of the
person. When an application for waiver has been refused by the Minister before, the present
appeal must have different circumstances then which have been appealed before. The request for
the wavier are has to be made in writing to the Minister.The circumstances which had been
provided by the applicant in an application for waiver of the condition included the facts that the
applicant was living with her partner and wanted to apply for a partner visa. The applicant is
suffering from general Poor health and depression. The partner of the applicant was admitted to
the hospital in a fear of heart attack. The applicant was in fear that if she returns to Philippines
her life would be at rest because of her ex husband4.
The delegate of the Minister and refused to waive condition 8503 based on the findings
that the circumstances which have been provided by the applicant why not consistent to the
provisions provided by regulation 2.05 (4)5. The element that the circumstances must be outside
the control of the applicant was not satisfied as it was found by the delegate that an act of
entering into a relationship with her partner was not out of the applicant’s control. In addition it
has been stated by the delegate while refusing to grant the application of the applicant that the
abusive nature of her ex husband and the threat which he poses to her had existed even before the
visitor visa has been granted to the applicant. The fear of the applicant that her life would be
address was not found to have being developed after the visa has been granted and therefore the
provisions under regulation 2.05(4) had not be satisfied6. There was an acknowledgement made
by the delegate in relation to the depression and distress which was faced by the partner of the
4 [2017] FCCA 2412 at Para 5
5 [2017] FCCA 2412 at Para 6
6 [2017] FCCA 2412 at Para 7

3
MIGRATION LAW
applicant due to her not being provided with a waiver. However in this situation it was held by
the delegate that such circumstances are only temporary and may not be considered as strong
evidence required waiving the condition.
Proceedings had been brought by the applicant before the court stating that the delegate
had not properly interpreted and understood the provisions of the MA as he did not provide
proper meaning to the term compelling. In addition n allegation was made that the delegate
ignored the fact that the circumstances which the applicant was in one not only compassionate
but also compelling. It was held by the court in this case that the delegate was appropriately able
to understand the situation and apply relevant test to resolve the issue. In addition it was
provided by the court at the submission of the application that the delegate has failed to
understand the meaning of the world compelling was unsustainable. The relevant legislative
Framework was correctly set out by the delegate along with providing correct meaning. There
was no evidence to show that the partner of the applicant required on going on a high level care
and in this situation the decision of the delegate not to make the waiver was correct. In addition it
was found by the court that the separation of the applicant with her partner is not guaranteed to
be permanent7. Although inadequate finding was made by the delegate in relation to the question
that whether the return of the applicant to Philippines and the fear of ex husband would account
to compelling and compassionate circumstances the delegate was correct and his finding that the
circumstances present before the visa has been granted. The applicant was required to meet all
requirements under reg. 2.05(4)8.
7 [2017] FCCA 2412 at Para 13
8 [2017] FCCA 2412 at Para 11; See Cheema v Minister of Immigration [2011] FCA 121 at [16]-[17]

4
MIGRATION LAW
In the given situation it has been found by the court that there was no jurisdictional error
which had been made by the delegate. The decision of the court makes it clear that circumstances
which occur before the grant of visa application would not in any situation be considered for the
purpose of waving condition 8503 under the MA. In addition the decision also makes it clear that
where any person associated with the applicant is not subjected to significant threat of depression
because of not granting the application for wavier no waiver should be granted. The decision also
makes it clear that getting into a relationship and cohabiting with a partner is not a situation
which is beyond the control of a person pursuant to regulation 2.05 of the migration regulations.
Yours Sincerely

5
MIGRATION LAW
Bibliography
Cheema v Minister of Immigration [2011] FCA 121 at [16]-[17]
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Ramos v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 2412