Migration Law for Immigration & Citizenship - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theMigration Law for Immigration Citizenship. Answer: Facts and Background In the case of Hasan v Minister for Immigration Citizenship [2010] FCA 375, the appellant had been provided with the notification by the department of immigration with respect to the reviews of a visa application. Generally there were five places at which an application could be made by the applicant in relation to the refusal of the visa. However the above mentioned notification only content two places where the application for Visa refusal could be made. After about 5 months when the letter had been send the appellant hard launched a review application with respect to the decision of the delegate in the administrative appeal Tribunal. The application was not heard by the Tribunal and stated that it had been received outside the time provided by regulation 4.10(1)(a) of the Migration Regulation 1994[1]. The appeal had been allowed by the court and the order made by the federal magistrate judge had been set aside. The court also issued a writ of mandamus and order the respondent to pay the appellants cost[2]. The reasons for decision According to Section 66(2)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the notice had to contain all the places where and review application can be made by the applicant. However it was held by the magistrate Court that providing to location where the application could be made was enough to comply with the provisions provided in section 66(2)(d)(iv)[3]. According to the Interpretation Act 1901 Section 15AA while interpreting any provisions of legislation the meaning should be provided in such a way so as to achieve the object or purpose of the legislation[4]. The federal court in its ruling stated that the object of the legislation was only to provide a place where the application could be made. However the decision of the magistrate Court was criticized by the federal court and it provided that plane meaning has to be provided to the provisions of act where the provisions are clear and provide effect to the purpose of that. The court held that adopting an alternative meaning to the provisions related to the notification which would provide that any place could be stated in the notification for the purpose of lodging an application for review would have some possibly inconvenient unfair unjust or irrational results. If such meaning is given to the section it would allow the ministers to refer any place which may not be suitable for the person whose visa have been refused. Thus, a person who is staying in Perth may be provided an address in Brisbane for the purpose of making a review application. Such a situation may also lead to significant difficulties for any person to whom the notice has been addressed and such person may be respected for making a proper application due t o unavailability of knowledge regarding the place of launching the application. There for the construction through which a notice must contain all places where are application could be made not only avoids any confusion discussed above but also provides convenience and Justice without placing any additional burden on the Minister. While making such a decision the judges departed from the interpretation of the section which had been provided in the case of Maroun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[5]. The appellant wanted an order which would provide that the tribunal have to determine the application for review which had been filed by the appellant on 19th March. According to regulation 4.10(1)(a) the period till which the review application could be made starts from the day and notice has been provided and ends within 21 days of such period. It was argued by the respondent that section 347(1)(b) of the MA does not allow an appeal after the period has elapsed. However such submission was rejected by the court and a relief had been granted to the appellant. The implications of the decision The decisions of the court implied that the notice made by the department under section 66(2)(d)(iv) has to provide all the venues and address where the appeal against the decision can be made. The decision also implied that the time of making an appeal would not initiate unless a proper notice has been provided to a person whose visa application has been refused. The decision had some troubles for the system in case a valid notification is not made by the department the time to launch an appeal would not be initiated. Such as interpretation as argued by the delegate of the mister may have extreme consequences for the system. Bibliography Hasan v Minister for Immigration Citizenship [2010] FCA 375 The Interpretation Act 901 The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) The Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)