Analysis of Ram v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

This case study examines the legal implications of the Ram v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA case, focusing on the validity of visa applications, particularly in the context of partner visas. The case revolves around the dismissal of a visa application due to inconsistencies in visa subclass categories between the applicant and her spouse. The analysis further delves into the consequences for registered migration agents who lodge invalid applications under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth), highlighting potential penalties and legal ramifications for violating migration policies, including the risk of visa disapproval and legal action under the Migration Act 1958. The study emphasizes the importance of adhering to visa regulations and providing accurate information to ensure successful visa applications.

A CASE OF RAM V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
BORDER PROTECTION [2018]
1

Table of contents
1. Explain, in plain English, the implications of the decision of Collier J about valid
visa applications especially in the context of partner visas.............................................................3
2. What would the consequences be, if you as a registered migration agent, lodged an application
that was invalid under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth)?..........................................4
References........................................................................................................................................6
2

1. Explain, in plain English, the implications of the decision of Collier J about valid visa
applications especially in the context of partner visas
According to the decision of the Federal Circuit Court the case of Ram v Minister for
Immigration 2017 FCCA 687 underwent a judicial procedure. It was following the verdict of the
judge Collier J that the application for the migration visa was found to get dismissed and
disapproved. It was under the subject of getting the judicial review for deciding on delegation of
the Minister. It was found that the appellant on making a visa application for shifting to Australia
post her marriage got canceled1. The application was made following the visa protocol under the
subclass of 820 comprising the partner subclass 801 as the resident. It was therefore found that
due to the incoherence of partner and wife's visa subclass the visa application got dismissed. This
was eventually considered to be an invalid application due to incoherent subclass category
between the spouse visas. It was the applicant who belongs from the Fijian origin who got
married to an Australian citizen2. It was following their marriage that she made the application to
shift to Australia towards her offshore partner through visa. Being the partner migrant of Class
BC of subclass 100, she applied for this visa. The applicant was found to already possess a
provisional class UF visa subclass 309 visa which was granted to her in the year 2002. It was
found that the appellant had traveled to Australia where she was placed. It was later in the year
1 Kalir, B., & Wissink, L. (2016). The deportation continuum: convergences between state agents
and NGO workers in the Dutch deportation field. Citizenship Studies, 20(1), 34-49.
2 Spaan, E., & van Naerssen, T. (2018). Migration decision-making and migration industry in the
Indonesia–Malaysia corridor. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(4), 680-695.
3

2006 that a reformed policy created by the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
which followed certain changes within the visa protocol. It was following this policy
transformation process that the decision of refusing the grant of visa to subclass 100 and the
appellant's the application towards Migration Review Tribunal towards merit review that was
made unsuccessful3. It was well informed by the officer of the Department towards the appellant
that these Visa applications were invalid.
The visa application did not meet the item 1124B where the Migration Regulations 1994 was
getting violated. It was following the Migration Act 1958 under section 48 that provision to
refuse the second visa application shall be actualized4. As no compelling or compassionate
grounds are necessarily mentioned within the regulations, there would be no such circumstances
shown. However, it was following the 36th postulation of the judgment that Collier specified that
the appeal shall be dismissed only on fulfillment of cost.
2. What would the consequences be, if you as a registered migration agent, lodged
an application that was invalid under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth)?
On applying for a visa, it shall be enclosed under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 that
specification has to be followed5. Disclosure of personal information shall be subjected to review
3 Tan, G., & Hugo, G. (2017). The transnational migration strategies of Chinese and Indian
students in Australia. Population, Space and Place, 23(6), e2038.
4 Grabowska, I., Garapich, M., Jazwinska, E., & Radziwinowiczówna, A. (2017). Migrants as
Agents of Change. Social Remittances in an Enlarged European Union Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
5 Chiou, B. (2017). Two-step migration: A comparison of Australia's and New Zealand's policy
development between 1998 and 2010. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 26(1), 84-107.
4

by the visa department authorities. The person shall be considered lodging an invalid application
following Migration Agents Regulations 1998 under specific infringement criterion. When an
authorized officer finds and believes that the applicant has committed certain offence they shal
be served with an infringement notice. The definite Division shall form the foundation of that
infringement notice to be directed towards him. In the same form if the authorized officer finds
out reasons to believe that the person has committed 2 or more offences of same category, they
shall be served with a specified and separate notice. The infringement consequences can be
commonly termed in the form of payment of penalties in relation with their wrongful applies.
The client of the migration agent shall investigate the issue of visa application. Any action taken
during of visa application which violates the policies and the regulations shall get eventually
handled with serious effect6. Following the Migration Act of 1958, the activities that are
undertaken following the acquisition of visa are subjected to legal interference. There are definite
visa departmental officers who send the applicant report or notice of warning7. However, it must
be made sure that personal information provided is all true and no falsification is involved. It is
following the legislative section of an offense under the Act under subsection 332G (2) that
verification shall be subsequently carried out. Hence the visa application thus made shall
automatically get disapproved and eventually dismissed. The areas of professionalism,
education, marital status, and activities shall be cross-examined before the approval obtained
towards the visa application made. The applicant shall henceforth become alert and alarmed
6 Özveren, E. (2017). Transnational social spaces: agents, networks, and institutions. Routledge.
7 Harvey, W. S., Groutsis, D., & van den Broek, D. (2018). Intermediaries and destination
reputations: explaining flows of skilled migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 44(4), 644-662.
5

before choosing the visa category to ensure if proper section and subclass category8. One needs
to be sure that each of the dimensions following the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 shall be
followed adequately to escape and avoid the disapproval of visa application. It is therefore
expected that any act of violation is not conducted with respect to seeking approval for their visa
application.
8 Renshaw, L. (2016). Migrating for work and study: The role of the migration broker in
facilitating workplace exploitation, human trafficking, and slavery. Trends and Issues in Crime
and Criminal Justice, (527), 1.
6

References
Chiou, B. (2017). Two-step migration: A comparison of Australia's and New Zealand's policy
development between 1998 and 2010. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 26(1), 84-107.
Grabowska, I., Garapich, M., Jazwinska, E., & Radziwinowiczówna, A. (2017). Migrants as
Agents of Change. Social Remittances in an Enlarged European Union Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Harvey, W. S., Groutsis, D., & van den Broek, D. (2018). Intermediaries and destination
reputations: explaining flows of skilled migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 44(4), 644-662.
Kalir, B., & Wissink, L. (2016). The deportation continuum: convergences between state agents
and NGO workers in the Dutch deportation field. Citizenship Studies, 20(1), 34-49.
Özveren, E. (2017). Transnational social spaces: agents, networks, and institutions. Routledge.
Renshaw, L. (2016). Migrating for work and study: The role of the igration broker in facilitating
workplace exploitation, human trafficking, and slavery. Trends and Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice, (527), 1.
Spaan, E., & van Naerssen, T. (2018). Migration decision-making and migration industry in the
Indonesia–Malaysia corridor. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(4), 680-695.
Tan, G., & Hugo, G. (2017). The transnational migration strategies of Chinese and Indian
students in Australia. Population, Space and Place, 23(6), e2038.
7