Muradzi v Minister for Immigration-Free-Samples for Students

Question: Examine and discuss the reasons of Tracey J for his decision and the implications of this case in relation to valid visa applications. Answer: Introduction: Before going to the decision of the case and the reasons upon which Tracey J has come to such decisions, it is required to go through a brief knowledge of the fact of the case. The fact of the case is that the appellant applies for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) migration visa. As per the provisions of the Act and the regulations, which deal with the procedure of the application of Visa, the appellant is to make the application for the renewal of visa within 15 March 2010, as the visa will expire on the same day. The appellant makes an application on the same day but through the mode of application, which has not been referred in the provisions of the Act and the regulations. The concerned office received the application on the next day when the visa has already expired. Therefore, the visa application has been refused and said as invalid. The officer who received the application said that the application was not made within the limitation period and in proper way. Therefore, the application stands rejected. On the decision of the Officer of the Immigration Department, the appellant sought for a judicial review and filed an appeal in the High Court of Australia. Reasons of the decision: The Judge dismissed the appeal on the following grounds. Firstly, the appellant has not made the application in the prescribed procedure as per the item 1229(3)(a) of the Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994[1] and so the minister had no obligation to consider the appeal. As per item 1229(3)(a) it has been said that the application must be made through internet or by posting the letter to the post box address or through courier service. The appellant has not taken the alternatives mentioned in the schedule and has sent the application through electronic transmission which as per the act has no validity. As per the provisions of the regulations, the appellant needs to file application for visa in the prescribed procedure and within the limitation period set by the register office. The appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of the regulation i.e. item 1229(3)(a) and has not applied for visa in the prescribed procedure and thus the visa application which reached the office cannot be consider as an application under the Migration Regulation. However, the appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the regulation. Judge Tracey reached this decision by holding that the Court should approach the item 1229 (3) (a) construction in similar manner as it has approached provisions equivalent to the sub items (I) (dealing with prescribed forms) and (2) (dealing with fees). Secondly, the judge considering the provisions in the Migration Act states that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of the Act under Sec. 45(2) and (3). As per the sections it provided that the ministry would consider those applications as valid which has complied the provisions of the Act. Item 1229(3)(a) of the Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994 Therefore, the application of the appellant was rejected. In Project Blue Sky Inc Others v Australian Broadcasting Authority, the court has evaluated certain principle as to determining the validity of the act done by a person by breaching the statutory duty[2]. Accordingly, the Judge held that the decision fell under the other matters that Regulation 2.07 (I) requires to be satisfied for the visa application to be valid. Judge Tracey held that all the provisions relating to visa application were integral part of the same prescriptive legislative scheme. All the requirements of the scheme, therefore, must be met for a valid application to be made. The Judge subsequently agreed with High Court Judges that the Minister could not consider the purported application. Moreover, the court states that whether it was the purpose of the legislation that an act done which breach or violate the provision of the legislation should be considered to be invalid depends on the language and the scope and object of the legislation. Therefore, as per Tracey J, the appellant has breached the provisions of the Acts and regulations of Migration Department and thus the application of the Visa made by the appellant is invalid. Implication of this case in relation to Valid Visa Application: The decision of the court in dismissing the appellants application for Visa and asks the ministry not to entertain the application for the visa where the provisions of the Act and regulations. The case set a precedent and clarity on what really constitute the valid visa application. This is because gave the right and landmark construction of the statute and what the applicants seeking to make valid visa application need to do to have their applications considered by the Minister[3]. It also vindicated the Minister and set out the role of the Minister in valid visa application. The ruling also helped emphasized the need for the applicants of a valid visa to strictly follow the laid down rules and comply with all the requirements without looking for alternatives that are not grounded in law. Principle of Statutory Interpretation: Judge Tracey adopted the purposive rule of interpretation based on the use of external material in coming to the final decision and concludes the case with the give judgment. The Judge in this case has taken the assistance of the external material such as the case laws and the precedents to decide the matter and to determine the parliamentary purpose o the legislation. Judge understood the need to consider the language of the relevant provision along with the scope as well as object of the entire statute to arrive at the correct statutory interpretation to guide his arrival at the above conclusion in the appeal[4]. The purposive rule or principle or approach to the statutory interpretation of statutes has been untouched until emphasis and initiative has been taken by Prof. Burrows and Justice McGrath. The purposive approach is of great assistance dealing with interpretation of the statutes where the Judge examines the principle of parliament intention/object of Act and the scheme of the Act with the help of external material. The subject of the statutory interpretation is important because much of the law is contained in the statute books and the majority of the issues come before the court includes statutory interpretation. The Judge gave the word their statutory, literal, and grammatical meaning to establish the legislature intention. The judge has also considered Section 25C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in dealing with the appellants case[5]. The provision states that when a form is prescribed under the Act then without any contrary intention, strict compliance is not necessary but substantial compliance is sufficient. For instance, where a statutory provision requires an application to be made to constitute a valid action under the legislation and if the applicant does not comply to the provision of the legislation then in such matter the court may interpret as invalid action of the applicant. Section 15AA of the Acts interpretation Act states the object of the use of purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes is that the purposive rule in the construction of the statutory interpretation would promote the purpose and object underlying the Act. As per the statute of interpretation it says that it is not required to adopt the purposive approach all the time. The approach will be considered only in case where there is availability of several constructions then the purposive rule is to be taken into consideration to promote the actual purpose of the Act. In Mills v Meeking[6] it has been stated that the provisions of any Act does not require any ambiguity or inconsistency for its operation. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of the statute have been drafted with a purposive approach. Thus, Judge Tracey has decided the case by applying the purposive rule in the interpretation of the statutes and provisions. Conclusion: The judge thus had no doubt as to the legislatures intention, but that which was intended was never said in the statute. Thus he had the view that the legislative intent had to appear from the words actually utilized, and never from what was intended to be said by the legislature, but they failed to say. Judge Tracey was aware that he had no discretion to go beyond words used in the statute itself thus only viewed himself as the interpreter of the parliaments will[7]. Therefore, Judge Tracey knew that he had no basis speculating about what legislature actually intended but to interpret the law by looking at the statute itself as well as attempting to formulate the intended meaning by legislature on this basis. Bibliography: Administrative Decision-Making In Australian Migration Law - ANU(2017) Press-files.anu.edu.au ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901(2017) Austlii.edu.au ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25Ccompliance With Forms(2017) Austlii.edu.au AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL(2003) www.austlii.edu.au https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/RevenueLawJl/2003/3.pdf (2017) https://www.lexisnexis.com.au/laying-down-the-law/downloads/chapter_13.pdf (2017) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/1953/2.pdf Hunter Resources Ltd V Melville(2017) Eresources.hcourt.gov.au LA304 - Topic 3 - Principles Relating To The Interpretation Of Statutes Andconstitutions(2017) Vanuatu.usp.ac.fj MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - SCHEDULE 1Classes Of Visa(2017) Austlii.edu.au Project Blue Sky Inc V Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 | Office Of State Revenue(2017) MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - SCHEDULE 1Classes Of Visa(2017) Austlii.edu.au https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch1.html. Project Blue Sky Inc V Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 | Office Of State Revenue(2017) 203.55.28.185 https://203.55.28.185/project-blue-sky-inc-v-australian-broadcasting-authority-1998-hca-28. Administrative Decision-Making In Australian Migration Law - ANU(2017) Press-files.anu.edu.au https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p318861/html/ch03.xhtml?referer=page=5. Administrative Decision-Making In Australian Migration Law - ANU(2017) Press-files.anu.edu.au https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p318861/html/ch03.xhtml?referer=page=5. ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25Ccompliance With Forms(2017) Austlii.edu.au https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s25c.html. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL(2003) www.austlii.edu.au https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/RevenueLawJl/2003/3.pdf. (2017) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/1953/2.pdf.