LML5000 – SUBJECT A: Australian Migration Law
Assessment Task 1 Semester 2, 2016
Case: Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Answer 1.
Introduction: - Mr. Farid Waensila arrived in Australia, November 2007 afterwards he applied a Protection visa which was unsuccessful then he lodged an onshore Partner visa application without having a substantive visa. He married on 5th September 2010. He applied on 10th September 2010 for partner visa under compelling reason. As per Regulations the applicant has to be offshore at the time of application.
Brief Summary Various Implication has discussed in this case. Federal court heard the matter according to existing, Regulations & Act. The Court referred to the submission & explanatory statement submitted by Mr. Waensila & DIBP and also referred to the previously decided cases. He applied for onshore spouse visa 802 without having substantive visa. He had his protection visa denied prior to this. He got refusal for partner visa because minister was not satisfied that he met the prescribed criteria.
First Judge delivered his decision in favour of Mr. Waensila that the Minister is not limited to exercise his given powers. They have flexibility to apply the Law in various circumstances. They should make a correct decision in…show more content… 3) does not have statement under the definition which is relevant to 3001.He was not fulfilling the criteria in 3001 because it has passed the 28 days’ time limit. In clauses & subclauses, heading and definition contradict from each other. Judges refer to the statement from minister but suggested that the heading and subclauses do not give a straight forward guideline about compelling reasons for the minister to use his discretionary power under the Act. Court ordered that there was a grammatical error in the misconstruction of the relevant statutory
