LML6003 Case Study: Advice on Reethi's Visa Options (Migration Law)

This case study provides a detailed analysis of Reethi's visa options, focusing on the challenges and solutions related to her situation. Reethi, an Indian resident, arrived in Australia on a visitor visa and subsequently applied for a protection visa (subclass 866), which was initially refused. The case study examines the eligibility criteria for the protection visa, considering factors such as Reethi's marriage to an Australian citizen, her pregnancy, and her health condition (Placenta Previa). The analysis references relevant migration laws and case precedents, including Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and others, to assess Reethi's eligibility. The study concludes that Reethi is likely to be granted the visa based on her compliance with migration rules, her health condition, and her claim for protection from forced marriage. The advice provided emphasizes the importance of complying with domestic migration laws and regulations.

Running head: CASE STUDY
Letter of advice to Reethi and Roman

CASE STUDY 2
Letter of Advice
To Reethi and Rohan,
Subject: - Letter of advice to Reethi and Roman regarding Reethi’s visa options, both onshore
and offshore including the bridging visa implications
Dear Reethi and Rohan,
After evaluating the case and issues you both have faced regarding Reethi’s visa options, both
onshore and offshore including territory b visa implications, the following advice has been given.
Being registered migration agent, I have found that you both need to encounter the issues and
problems such as problems in getting the protection 866 visa, whether you will succeed in the
prospectus of visa and meeting the eligibility criteria for getting the visa.
In this, I want to tell you about the protection 866 visa. 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. Australian
Migration Act 1958 defines that the people who are refugees can apply for the protection visa.
To get the benefit of the visa one should live and work in Australia as the permanent resident.
They have access to Medicare and center link services. Sometimes, the 8503 conditions were
imposed on the application in which one applicant cannot apply for another visa other than the
protection visa1. This case shows that Reethi is eligible to apply for the Visa and she meets all
the applicable requirement to get the visa. However, the following justification has been given
below.
The eligibility criteria state that the person who is eligible to get a visa is given as below and
these terms need to be compiled by the Reethi.
 If the person is in Australia on the valid visa and not through the illegal marine or unauthorized
arrival
 The person meets the protection obligations of Australia.
1 Lisa Gleeson. "Australia stands by Israel after UN condemns illegal settlements." (2017) 11(22) Green Left
Weekly

CASE STUDY 3
 The person is appealing for the protection
 The evidence should be there that the person is the refuge and meet the requirements of the
Australia Migration Act
 The person should not have been barricaded from applying the protection visa application
 The satisfaction should be given to the minister that the visa has been given in the national
interest.
 It shall meet the health and character requirements2
Therefore, in this case, Reethi could take the Protection visa application Class XA subclass
866, which was refused 8 months ago by the Department of Home Affairs under the health and
character requirements. It is required for the person to provide evidence of the medical
examinations that should ensure the protection of the health along with the Australian
community. The person can include these members in the visa application like the partner, your
children or your parent’s dependent children and the other dependent eligible relatives. Under
section 65(1) of Act states that visa will only be granted if the decision made is being satisfied
with the criteria3.
There are some number of cases which have mentioned the laws and rules for the protection visa
had been provided on the above eligibility criteria chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs4, Applicant A & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs &
Anor 5, Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor 6, Chen Shi Hai v Minister for
Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 7, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji
Ibrahim 8, and Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar9
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, Applicant A
& Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor (1997) 190 CLR 225, Minister for
2 Mary crock and Kate Bones. "Australian exceptionalism: temporary protection and the rights of refugees." (2015)
16(3) Melb. J. Int'l L. 522.
3, Thea Coventry. "Complementary protection: the role of courts in expanding protection to ‘environmental refugees'
in domestic asylum regimes." (2015) 8(3) Organizational Perspectives on Environmental Migration
4 (1989) 169 CLR 379
5 (1997) 190 CLR 225
6 (1997) 191 CLR 559
7 (2000) 201 CLR 293
8 (2000) 204 CLR 1
9 (2002) 187 ALR 574

CASE STUDY 4
Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559, Chen Shi Hai v Minister for
Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 201 CLR 293, Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1, and Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 187 ALR 574 (Davern, Warr, Block, La Brooy, Taylor, &
Hosseini, 2016).
After assessing your case with the available facts and implication of rules, following
things are found which are given that Raaethi being an Indian resident came to Australia before 2
and a half years ago on the class FA subclass 600 visitor visa that is valid for six months. This
shows that she has a valid legal visa to visit. After arriving in Australia she has applied for the
protection visa application class XA subclass 866. It was under the migration law and she
applied all the migration rules and visa. It has been refused by the department before eight
months. She has filed a review application. The reason she gave that her parents wanted to get
her married to a boy and she does not want to marry the boy. She had already married nine
months ago to an Australian citizen named Roman Fitzgerald. They are living together for eleven
months. She is pregnant for seven months. The gynecologist had stated that she had a Placenta
Previa and she requires proper medical care and monitoring and her child also require proper
monitoring after birth.
As per facts and laws of the migration, it can be suggested that the eligibility criteria that
she has come on the class FA subclass are the temporary visa basically for the student who
comes to Australia for the temporary period. As per the case study, the protection 866 visa has
been given to refugees. However as per the eligibility criteria that states that if anyone is on the
valid visa can apply for the protection on the condition that one has not come for the illegal
means. This rule allows Reethi to take visa for the medical purpose and as per the law, she would
be easily granted a visa for her visit. It means that this criteria has been met by Reethi and also
she is required to meet the protection obligations. The person who appeals for the protection can
get the visa. In the case given case study, it is found that Reethi was appealing for the protection
that if she goes back she will be married to some other as she is already married to an Australian
citizen. There is no 8503 condition on her visa that means she is not barred to get the visa and
that meet the eligibility requirements. In this case, she would be eligible to take a visa for the
same purpose. The requirement related to health issues has been met and as per gynecologist

CASE STUDY 5
stated that she had a placenta pravia and requires continuous monitoring. The child has also
required to be monitored after birth and as per rule, it states that Reethi is only required to
produce evidence to the medical examiner and in this case can apply for the visa. In these cases,
it has been established these essentials chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
affairs, Applicant A & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor, Minister for
Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor, Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim ,
and Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar. These cases held that Reethi
could easily get her visa as she has complied with the visa migration rules and she would be
granted visa in the desired country. However, she needs to comply with the domestic migration
laws and regulations before moving to that selected country. These above cases show the
applicable rules and regulations which needed to be compiled by the Reethi and Roman
regarding Reith’s visa options, both onshore and offshore including the bridging visa
implications while applying for the visa.
Therefore, on the basis of the immigration rules and regulation, it is considered that Reethi can
get the visa. It has been concluded that Reethi is asking for protection as she cannot marry again
and her health conditions are not allowing going back to India. In addition to this, Reethi has not
faced issues trouble and also complied with the application of the migration rules and
regulations. On the basis of this, it has been advised that Reethi can get the Visa easily.
If I can do anything to ease the transition or to help you both in another way, then please do not
hesitate to call.
Thanking You,
XYZ
Migration agent

CASE STUDY 6
Bibliography
Journal
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.
Coventry, Thea. "Complementary protection: the role of courts in expanding protection to
‘environmental refugees’ in domestic asylum regimes." (2015) 8(3) Organizational Perspectives
on Environmental Migration. 93-108.
Case Laws
Applicant A & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor (1997) 190 CLR 225
chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 201 CLR 293
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 187 ALR 574