Question:
You can also refer to the attached case Muradzi [2011] FCA976 (26 Aug 2011).
Discuss and examine (in plain English), the reasons Tracey J made his decision and its implications for valid visa applications.
Discuss and explain the principles of statutory interpretion that Tracey J used (if any) to reach his conclusion.
Answer:
Muradzi v Minister for Immigration and Citizens [2011] FCA 976 (26 Aug 2011).
A Brief Fact About The Case
In this case, the appellant applied for a Skilled (provisional), (ClassVC) immigration visa.
The procedure for applying for visa is covered by the Migration Act and Regulation of Australia.
The appellant wishes to renew his visa application. However, the applicant must apply for a renewal within 15 March 2010, as required by the Migration Regulations. Otherwise, the visa will be cancelled.
Although the appellant applied on the same day, the application method was incorrect as per the Migration Regulation.
The concerned office received the appellant’s application on the day following the deadline. It stated that the procedure was incorrect even though the appellant had made a Visa application.
The application was therefore rejected.
The appellant requested a judicial review. He appealed against the decision of the Officer of the Immigration Department to the Federal Court of Australia.
Motives for the Decision:
The appeal was dismissed by the Judge on the following grounds.
First, the appellant did not submit the application according to the Schedule 1 of 1994 Migration Regulations. Therefore, the minister was not required to review the appeal.
The application must be submitted electronically, by post to the address provided or via courier service.
The appellant has not chosen the alternative options and sent the application electronically. This is contrary to the act.
The regulations require that the appellant file a visa application within the prescribed time and within the specified limitation period.
The regulation has been violated by the appellant.
The appellant has failed to comply with the regulations i.e. item 1229(3)(a). He also did not apply for visa under the prescribed procedures. Therefore, the visa application that reached the office could not be considered as a migration application under the Migration Regulation.
Judge Tracey made this decision and stated that the Court should approach item 1229(3)(a)’s construction in the same way it approached sub-items (I) (dealing on prescribed forms) (2) (dealing about fees).
Second, Judge Tracey considers the provisions of Section 45(2) and (3). He states that the appellant is not complying with these provisions.
45(2) and (3).
The Judge ruled that the decision was within the scope of Regulation 2.07 (I), which must be met in order for a visa application to be valid.
Judge Tracey ruled that visa application provisions were part of the same prescriptive legislative system.
To make a valid visa application, all requirements must be met.
In agreement with the High Court Judges, the Judge stated that the Minister was unable to consider the purported application.
The court also stated that the law’s purpose was to prohibit acts that violate or breach the provisions of legislation. This is dependent on the language used and the nature and object of that legislation.
According to Tracey J, therefore, the appellant has violated the Acts and Regulations of Migration Department. Therefore, the appellant’s application for the Visa is null.
This case is relevant to valid visa application:
The court’s decision to dismiss the appellants Visa application and requests that the ministry not entertain any visa application where the Act and regulations are applicable.
This case established a precedent and clarified what constitutes a valid visa application.
The Minister was able to interpret the statute in a landmark way. This allowed applicants to submit valid visa applications.
The Minister was also vindicated and the Minister’s role in valid visa applications was clearly defined.
This ruling helped to emphasize the importance of visa applicants following the rules and adhering to all requirements, without seeking out alternatives.
Principle of Statutory Interpretation
Judge Tracey used the principles of the scheme and object of Act/intention to parliament as the rules for the literal construction.
To arrive at the correct interpretation of the statute, the Judge had to take into account the meaning of the relevant provision and the scope and object of the entire statute.
The Judge must adhere to the literal rule principle when interpreting the statutes. This is where he will examine the principle of Parliament intention/object of Act as well as the scheme of Act.
To establish the legislature intention, the Judge used the words’ statutory, literal and grammatical meanings.
In deciding the case of the appellants, the judge also considered Section 25C under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
This provision says that strict compliance with a prescribed form under the Act is not required, but that substantial compliance is sufficient.
If a statutory requirement requires that an application be made in order to make it valid, then the court can interpret such matter as invalid.
Dawson J ruled that if a form of an application is made under a law and that provision requires that the applicant make a substantial compliance with that Act, then the applicant can apply.
The judge used the assumption that the legislature uses the common language of citizens and gave effect to every word in the statute. He also interpreted them in context.
Judge Tracey stated that in order to decide the purpose of a statute, he must consider both the language and the scope of the relevant provision.
Judge Tracey echoed the New South Wales Court of Appeal’s views in Tasker v Fullwood regarding the visa application process prescribed by the Migration Act and Regulations.
The judge was therefore certain of the intent of the legislature, although it was not stated in the statute.
He believed that the legislative intent must be apparent from the actual words used, not from what the legislature intended. But they didn’t say.
Judge Tracey knew that he could not go beyond the words in the statute and he only considered himself to be the interpreter of parliament’s will.
Judge Tracey was aware that there was no basis for speculation about the intent of the legislature. He instead had to interpret the law using the statute and trying to determine the meaning.
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (2018) Austlii.edu.au
Acts Interpretation Act 1901-SECT 25Ccompliance with Forms (2017) Austlii.edu.au
LA304 – Topic 3. Principles Relating to the Interpretation Of Statutes and Constitutions (2017) Vanuatu.usp.ac.fj
Migration Regulations 1994 – Schedule 1Classes of Visa (2017) Austlii.edu.au
Office Of State Revenue (2017)
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
