Influences of Laws and Regulation

He has applied for Class XB Subclass 204 Refugee and Humanitarian Visa before 6 July 2017. On 2 July 2017 he has been sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months as he has assaulted a public officer. Therefore, due to such impacts and reasons on 6 July 20174 the application was rejected under Migration Act, 1958. In accordance with such representations, there have been various arguments and revocation to such cancellation on which delegates has decided not to revoke the decision. Moreover, in relation with the adequacy and lawful ascertainment of the operations there have been influences of laws and regulation imposed by government with the same respect.

BACKGROUND

As per considering the life history and the criminal record of the applicant where it can be said that there has been various obstacles and issues which have been faced by him. On the earlier stage where he has lost his parents in Somalia which were shot in front of him when he was only 14 years old. He along with this brother’s family moved to Kakuma Refugee Camp at Kenya where they have faced various issues such as theft, robbery and life-threatening issues. Moreover, these problems were continuing to hit them and distract their life span than he got separated from the family and started living in hostels of road side. He has started taking legal drugs alcohol.

In consideration with the criminal records he has been engaged in various cases such as assaulting public officers, breaching the imprisonment order, burglary etc. therefore, the criminal records are not accepted in terms of immigrating him in Australia. Therefore, there will be various obstacles and issues which were being faced by the society due to such kinds of activities performed by him.

Burglary: February (2009)

These cases represent that both the time the applicate was not conscious and have drank alcohol. Therefore, the intentions were not bringing damage to any social and community-based dispositions. The punishment has been based on such problems were relevant with the imprisonment of him for 6 month and 12 months as per legal aspects.

In the fist case of burglary in dwelling where applicant went along with his friends and stole a property valued at $500. Thus, on which he has been punished for 12 months of imprison and eligible for paroles. Similarly, as per the 2^nd case of Burglary where applicated have picked up a brick and through on the window of Swan Taxis. Thus, on which he has been sentenced for the 6 months of imprisonments and eligible for the parole.

Moreover, as per considering such aspects on which can be said that in 2009 the applicant was 20 years old. Therefore, as per considering the current amendment and legislation on which a person more than 18 years is legally capable of consuming alcohol. Therefore, in this approach it can be said that, Applicant was also liable for the legal punishments relevant with the alcohol laws and the punishments awarded to him were legally correct.

Assault: April 2004

There have been various issues which have been recorded in the criminal history of the applicant which were relevant with assaulting and being offensive among society. applicant have spat on the face of two public bus drivers which is a physical damage or harm to a person. There will be chances of spreading any disease which will have negative impacts on society. However, in this case he has been sentenced for 7 months of imprisonment and suspension from the job. In relation with physical harm and assault where he has been penalised for the amount $66.

Along with this, he had assaulted two women with the motive to theft them like stalling their bags and punching them on their faces thus, with the same aspect he has gain sentenced for 7 and 9 months pf imprisonments as well as directs for 12 months of programming under supervision. Moreover, in July 2017 he has assaulted a public officer on which there have been punishment of 3 months of imprisonment but that was concurrent.

Previous visa cancellation

There has been cancellation of visa application by the applicant which is due to the criminal history and the behaviour of him with affects to the section 501(3A) of Migration act. The main reason behind such cancellation was because of criminal records and the terms of his in serving imprisonment.

However, in 2016 the applicant has revoked the judgement based on cancellation of application on which esurience required for non-repeating the criminal offence again. Thus, as per ascertaining the characteristics of the applicant the application has been rejected. Thus, due to such impacts there have been requirement of passing the character test on which applicant have been felt and which have cancelled the visa application under Migration Act, 1958.

THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION

There has been influences of various laws and cases which were relevant with this case. T there have been various sections of Migration Act 1958 which have facilitate the adequate judgements and the punishment under which applicate have been charged.

As per considering the section 501(3A) of the act where a minister can cancel the visa application if a person is having any substantial criminal record, sexually based offence involving a child as well as he has been sentenced of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution. These were the amendments which were stated in the section 3A and paragraph (6)(a), (7)(a), (b) & (c) and (6). In accordance with the section 501(7)(c) which states that a person has to be passed in the character test on which there must be completion of substantial criminal records and the imprisonment for 12 months.

In accordance with section 501CA (3) on which minister makes the original decisions in written form and particularly presenting a relevant information. In accordance with the subsection (b) where applicant has to present a representation among minister with respect to regulation regarding revocation of the original decisions. On the other side, as per considering the subsection 501CA (4) on which there are various amendments which represents that a minister may revoke the original decision and represent in accordance with invitation. However, in this case minister will be satisfied as if the applicant passes the character test under section 501 and there will be influences of another reason on which original decision will be revoked.

Moreover, in accordance with case, where applicant have been failed in all aspects as well as there will not being any reason to reject the original decision. In the power of tribunal to review the decision on which there have been refusal to the revocation to the original decisions. There has been cancellation of the applicant’s visa which have been considered under 500 of the act.

DIRECTION NO. 65

In accordance with the case of refugee there have been implication of various laws and regulation which were being impacted in the ministry of directions. Under section 499(1) and section 499 (2A) of Migration act, 1958 which states the direction for reviewing the revocation of decisions. Therefore, there have been commencement of the relevant direction such as Direction no. 65 dated 23 December 2014. There has been consideration over the several amendment and paragraph’s which are associsted with this subsection such as 6.1(3), 6.2 (1) etc. which provides the direction of providing reasons. Therefore, here the Australian government is committed towards protecting the Australian community and from the individual which are not best at their character to bring the satisfactory life span. The importance of government is based on ensuring proper national securities form such criminal. Giving visas to such individual will be risky and will have negative impacts as it will be a harmful decision for community at large.

As per paragraph 7 which sets out that discretion to be exercised informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 on which there will be cancellation to the visa applied and such decisions will be revoked. However, as per ascertaining all the paragraphs and the relevant decisions as well as directions which were being set out there on which it can be said that one can revoke the decisions. Thus, the revocation will be based on proper review over the case, criminal history and the characteristics of an individual. However, in this case the applicant has been involved in various cases and unlawful activities on which he has harmed the society with unethical behaviour. Along with this number of times he has been served in imprisonment which determines that the person in harmful to the society and will not being awarded any visa or immigration benefits from Australian Government.

THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Under consideration of the section 501CA (4) of the act on which there must be reliable and relevant reasons which are has to be facilitated for revocation of the original decisions. Therefore, a decision maker must be satisfied with the reasons and answers which are to be presented by them with respect to meet the exercise of the power. Along with this, it is not being disputed by applicants which have represented are being referred to the subsection 501CA (4).

In accordance with the subparagraph (b)(i) on which the applicant has failed the character test. Thus, in context with such aspects on which it can be said that applicant have been denoted as the ineffective and inappropriate ascertainment of the operations. However, in accordance with the section 501CA (4)(b) where the applicant has satisfied the minister than the revocation on the cancellation of visa have been accepted. Therefore, in accordance with such substance the “may” will be replaced with “must”.

REASONING

There has been consideration over the several reasons which determines the rejection to application and revocation. The prime concern of the Australian government is for facilitating appropriate security among the Australian citizens as well as protecting them from criminal and other serious conduct. Along with this, if applicant was found under any criminal influences than there will be analysis over the nature and seriousness of the conduct to date. Moreover, other considerations have been set out in the direction no. 65 which are being affecting in the mandatory cancellation of visa. However, applicant have not being able to clear all requirements and condition on which he has been rejected for making revocation on the data base.

As per considering the case of BCR16 v Minister for immigration and border protection on which the application of revocation has been presented by the applicated and which have been refused due to unsurely of the repetition of harmful and unethical acts form their side. Influences of direction 65 which determines the qualitative differences in exercise does not satisfy the criteria of assessing the risk which harmful by the visa applicant.

THE BALANCING EXERCISE

In relation with considering the case and the issues on which the judgement has been presented here, therefore, the nature and the seriousness of the conduct which determines the overall weight of the issues. Thus, the weight of crimes and criminal records are higher than there are maximum chances of having rejection on the revocation of the original decision. It is because there will be significant chances of the repetition of such acts or the criminal conduct by the applicant.

Along aside, as per considering the majority of the criminal conduct have been made by the applicant which are a part and result of his personal issues of taking drugs and alcohol. Therefore, intentionally he did not affect any crime while he was completely conscious.

Applicant has failed in placing the application for the visa in 2016 which is based on his past criminal conduct as well as imprisonment with respect to the same.

If you want to write a perfect essay and looking for an essay writer? So you can hire professional essay writing experts at a very low cost.

CONCLUSION

By summing up the case it can be said that there have been reviewable of the decisions which were made on 12 April 2018. Therefore, the decisions of elegance have been presented by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection which were bound not revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s Visa.

Students Also Like to Read: Managing Financial Resources in Health and Social Care

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit