No Further Stay Visa-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Read the case Ramos v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 2412 (3 October 2017) which is attached to this assignment. A client approaches you and requests an explanation in the form of a letter of advice (in plain English) as to the reasons of Driver J for his decision and the implications of this case in relation to valid visa applications especially pertaining to an 8503 waiver. The client has a similar factual situation. Answer: To Mr. X Melbourne Australia Sub: condition and exception of no further stay visa Respected Sir/ Madam, In Australia, there are many provisions included under the application for granting visa and certain terms and conditions are applicable on the same with a purpose to make all the related provisions and entry clear and reasonable[1]. Under the Australian Migration Act, there is a provision on the No Further Stay application that restricts an applicant to file another substantive visa application in Australia[2]. The visa conditions include visitor visa, training and research visa and any other visa. However, there is a waiver to this provision has been mentioned under the condition of 8503 that the delegates has the power to waive the visa terms if any of the following grounds have been attracted: If any compelling and compassionate situation has been cropped up; The person should have no control over the situation; The situation can bring huge change in the life of the applicant and th nature of the change should be permanent; The Ministry of Delegate should be satisfied that the newly developed situation is different and can bring permanent change in the applicants life; and The request of waiver should be made in the written form[3]. All the necessary provisions have been discussed in the case of Ramos v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 2412, where the Federal Circuit Court of Australia has correctly interpreted the grounds of 8503 condition and an outline of the request application under this visa condition has been set out by this case. It has been observed in this case that the applicant Ms Ramos has made a request to the delegate to waive her 8503 condition and her request has been cancelled. This case is quite appropriate to understand the terms mentioned in other provisions of the Migration Act that are co-related to the current provision. The prescribed conditions that are useful under this condition are prescribed in the regulation of 2.05(4) and the delegates are empowered to reject any application if those conditions have not been attracted[4]. A close interpretation of the term compelling has also been discussed in this case. It has been observed by the court in this case is that if the visa-holder has been faced any situation that has been cropped up after the visa has been allocated to him and the applicant has no control over the situation, only then the applicant can secure his position for the waiver ground. However, it has been observed that in case of any personal cause, the option for compelling cir cumstances could not be taken into account. In the Ramos case, all the compelling grounds that are shown and mentioned by the applicant are connected to her personal matter. It has been stated by her that she had a relation before and her partner was violent in nature. If her visa will be cancelled and she had to return to Philippines, where from she is actually belongs to, will change her life. There is a provision mentioned in this case that if the applicant can successfully shows the fact that she is unit for the travel or any of his close relative is in critical condition and permanent damage could be caused in his absence, the condition of no further stay can be waived. In her application, Ms Ramos has further been contended that her new partner is ill and she is afraid that in her absence, her partner can face severe attack. However, she has failed to show whether her absence may harm her partner on permanent basis. Therefore, the delegate has rejected the application on the s aid ground. A person under the condition of 8503 can take the plea that he needs a protection visa and he needs to show the grounds based on what he is apprehending that any misfortune can be happened to him[5]. However, the grounds should be reasonable enough to pass an order for the grant of these waive[6]. In this case, Ms Ramos has confessed that her previous partner was sadistic in nature and acted with her violently. She has been contended that he will attack her again if she goes back to Philippines. According to the delegates, these explanations made by Ms Ramos are not reasonable enough and she had failed to meet the criteria mentioned to this effect respectively. Further, these stated grounds could no attract the intervention power of the Ministry of Delegates that has been mentioned under section 351 of Migration Act[7]. Further, according to regulation of 2.05(4), the compelling grounds that have been raised must be cropped up after the visitors visa has been granted. Therefore, it has been suggested in the case that if the applicant has shown any personal ground or if the grounds mentioned by the applicant failed to meet the requirements mentioned in the regulation, waiver could not be granted in that case. It has also been mentioned in the case that the applicant should have no control over the adverse situation that could be cropped up if waiver not granted to him. In this case, Ms Ramos has been stated that her ex-partner is aggressive. However, from this case it could not be stated that she does not have any control on it. She can take effective steps regarding the same. Therefore, this provision has also not been attracted in this case. Therefore, it is advised to you that you should keep in mind that all your grounds are attracted the provisions of the same regulation and you have to rightly interpret the provisions accordingly. Regard References: Australia, Multicultural. "Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs." (2016). Beine, Michel, et al. "Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database."International Migration Review50.4 (2016): 827-863. Clibborn, Stephen. "Why undocumented immigrant workers should have workplace rights."The Economic and Labour Relations Review26.3 (2015): 465-473. Crock, Mary.Immigration and refugee law in Australia. Federation Press, 2018. Dauvergne, Catherine.Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge University Press, 2017. Missbach, Antje. "Making a" career" in people-smuggling in Indonesia: protracted transit, restricted mobility and the lack of legal work rights."Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia30.2 (2015): 423-454. Richards, Kelly, and Samantha Lyneham. "Help-seeking strategies of victim/survivors of human trafficking involving partner migration."Trends and issues in Crime and Criminal Justice468 (2014): 1-10. Clibborn, Stephen. "Why undocumented immigrant workers should have workplace rights."The Economic and Labour Relations Review26.3 (2015): 465-473. Crock, Mary.Immigration and refugee law in Australia. Federation Press, 2018. Australia, Multicultural. "Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs." (2016). Dauvergne, Catherine.Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge University Press, 2017. Richards, Kelly, and Samantha Lyneham. "Help-seeking strategies of victim/survivors of human trafficking involving partner migration."Trends and issues in Crime and Criminal Justice468 (2014): 1-10. Beine, Michel, et al. "Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database."International Migration Review50.4 (2016): 827-863. Dauvergne, Catherine.Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.