Immigration Law for Immigration and Citizenship - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theImmigration Law for Immigration and Citizenship. Answer: 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 th rough prepaid post, online or courier delivery[1]. 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. 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 citizen[2]. 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 consi dered 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 service[3]. It was provided by the appellant that the reasoning provided in Onea v minister[4] of immigration and Fang vs minister of immigration[5] would be applicable with equal force related to the method of lodgement in this case. It was further provided that the federal 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. 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. 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