Australian Migration Law and Practice Immigration

Question: Discuss about theAustralian Migration Law and Practice for Immigration. Answer: Introduction In this case of Malhi v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 119 (2 February 2017) the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection made an complain against the applicant Amanpreet Singh Malhi who was intended to get an residency visa at Australia where he married to a woman Ms. Teresa Bartlett who is a citizen of Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection had some doubt that the applicant may want a visa for permanent residency in Australia. Discussion Malhi v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 119 (2 February 2017) This is a case of Migration act 1958 (CTH). The applicant is a male citizen of India, aged about 26, who was sponsored by a woman, aged about 52 was citizen of Australia. This is an issue of partner visa. It was processed by the Federal Circuit Court on February 2017[1]. The applicant Amanpreet Singh Malhi applied for a partner visa on 13 October 2011 according the sec- 65 of the Migration act 1958 on the facts that he will marry to his sponsor Ms. Teresa Bartlett[2]. However, the consulates reject the visa process. Therefore, he applied to the court for allowed him to the visa for Australia. On 13 February 2014, he applied to the tribunal for allowing the decision but they also reject the visa of the applicant because the tribunal court think that applicant and sponsor unable to establish the reasons of permanent partner visa. Therefore, the applicant again applied to the Federal Court for review decisions of the delegated legislation. In Australian the Federal Court, have powers to review court decisions according the Migration Act 1958. The Federal Court only reviews those cases, which have any kind of judicial errors. The court first investigates that, previous court decision wether made according to the law or not. Applicant has rights to apply to the Federal Court for review the decision. At time of application applicant needs to fulfill the cl.801.221 of sch.2 of the Migration Regulation act 1994[3]. The Tribunal court gave its decision before applicant applied for the revision. The court gathered some evidence, which was submitted, by the applicant and the sponsor. They submitted some documents before the tribunal court make the decision[4]. The sponsor or spouse defines in the sec of 5F of Migration act 1958 that the person who is married as in hisher relationship status , they must share a mutual commitments to each other , their relation must be genuine and must live together or may live separately for temporary basis. According the cl.801.221 of sch.2, the applicant failed to establish the terms of sec-5F, so the court reject the visa process according the sec 65 of Migration Act 1958. But after submitted the above mentioned documents the Tribunal court invite the applicant to appear in the court according the sec-360 of Migration Act 1958 where the court accept the relation between the applicant and his sponsor under the sub-reg.1.15A(3) of the Regulations[5]. In this matter, the Tribunal court has made some doubts about the applicants motive to marry someone who was aged about 52 years not able to bear any children asnd they do not discussed about to get a child in future. There are some more doubts of about the relation between applicant and sponsored whether that was genuine or to get the citizenship of Australia because the sponsor is citizen of Australia[6]. In the court, Judge Jones tried to observe the relationship motive between the applicant and his sponsor. He doubts that there may be other reasons or purpose to get the visa. However, the court comes to that decisions that the jurisdiction error where Tribunal court gave so much importance on that issue for come to a decision. The tribunal court only gave importance on the intension of having the partner visa. Whereas, the Federal Court gave Judgments that the tribunal court made a judicial error at the time of giving decision. It is described that there is no need for the partie s to live with each other or show that they love each other in a romantic sense for establish the facts of genuine relation. The applicants motive was gaining a permanent visa residency in Australia and the relation with his spouse is immaterial. Conclusion The court ordered a writ of review decisions of lower court directed to the second respondent Administrative Appeals Tribunal for rejects which was establish on 20 March 2015. Court also ordered to the first respondent the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Reference Hammar, Tomas.Democracy and the nation state. Routledge, 2017. Hawthorne, Lesleyanne. "The impact of skilled migration on foreign qualification recognition reform in Australia."Canadian Public Policy41.Supplement 1 (2015): S173-S187. Malhi v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 119 (2 February 2017) Merla, Laura. "Salvadoran migrants in Australia: An analysis of transnational families capability to care across borders."International Migration53.6 (2015): 153-165. Peters, Margaret. "Immigration, Delegation, and International Law." (2017). Schilling, Meredith. "Migration law [Book Review]."Victorian Bar News160 (2016): 96. Segrave, Marie, et al. "Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee: Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016." (2016).