No Further Stay Visa

Question

Task: Have a look at the case of Ramos v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 2412 (3 October 2017) which is provided along with the assignment.

You are being approached by a client and asked for clarification in the format of the Letter of Advice in lucrative English language. The matter to be covered in the letter is a clarification of Driver J for the judgment and its connotation of this case as parallel with the application of visa relevant to the 8503 waivers. The applicant has encountered the alike realistic situation.

Answer

To
Mr. A
Sydney
Australia

Sub: Stipulations and exemption under no further stay visa

Respected Sir/ Madam,

Unlike in other countries, a person has to incorporate many requirements in his application to get approved for his visa for Australia. The similar stipulations and provisions are made compulsory on related actions to make the process very transparent and logical [1]. As per the guidelines laid down in the Australian Migration Act, there is a subdivision termed as No Further Stay which provides the limitation on the applicant to submit an additional operative visa application [2]. The stipulations and terms for the visa contains documents like training and research visa, visitor visa, and similar sort of visas. In section 8503 there is a disclaimer provided for the aforesaid stipulations which depicts that the emissaries have the authority to put aside if any of the below-provided situations have happened:

• The applicant should have no charge over the condition.
• If any condition of persuasion and coercion is generated.
• The application of a disclaimer should be provided in the written form rather than as a vocal request.
• If the condition will make a huge impact and change in the life of the applicant and the character of the transformation is long-lasting.
• The reality and potentiality of recent happenings to make permanent changes in the life of the could be satiable to Ministry of Delegate [3].

The provision regarding these circumstances is explained in the case of Ramos v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 2412, within which the Federal Circuit Court of Australia had elucidated them entailed in the section of 8503. By this case, a format for the application to be submitted to acquire a visa was drafted which provided more clarity to the prevailing issue.

In the case of Ramos v Minister, the major observations were made as Ms. Ramos, the applicant had asked the emissary to renounce the condition prevailing under section 8503. The jury bench had canceled her request. To understand the provisions and stipulations mentioned under the Migration Act the case of Ramos V Minister is a very good example as the case had made clear guidelines considering the existing condition. The law and sections which are relevant to this issue come under section 2.05 (4), which could be observed meticulously. If the conditions and requirements are not followed appropriately, the officials and emissaries have the authority to cast-off the application of a visa [4]. The term “compelling” has been deciphered and elucidated with appropriate reasoning under this case. By looking into a further state of affairs the court has stated that the applicant possessing the visa is not answerable if they are encountered with any contrary condition after the issuance of the visa keeping in mind that the visa holder has no controlled over the present situation. In this case, the person could hold his ground and plea for the act of waiver. Although these stipulations are provided if the circumstances are based on any personal reasons, the choice for coercion status quo could not be reckoned before officials. As per the case of Ramos V Minister, the major and conclusive arguments made by the applicant are all personal and has a very strong relation to her intimate life. She had given testimony in front of the jury that she was engaged in an abusive relationship with one of the citizens who were very vicious and sadistic in behavior. If the officials would cancel the visa of Ms. Ramos she would have to go back to her native country, the Philippines which would transform her life forever. It is also described in the section that if the person could put forward the relevant proof that the travel bears a lot of significance and impact in her life. According to the requirements and endowments provided in the section, the applicant could persuade the officials for approval of no further stay if she could provide solid evidence that one of her close relatives is under critical health condition and the relative may suffer through very grave impairment in the person’s absence. Using this provision of the law Ms. Ramos put forward the argument that her new spouse is in very poor condition and she is afraid that her nonexistence may cause permanent damage to him. Although it was a strong argument from her behalf, she had failed to prove that her absence may cause imminent damage to him. Hence the emissaries had rejected Ms. Ramos’s plea for no further stay.

As per the predicaments of section 8503, the applicant could submit an application asking for the request that she or he calls for a protection visa. For this, the applicant requires to show evidence and verifications that there is a strong probability of prone accidents or unfortunate mishappenings [5]. It should be specially taken in mind by the applicant that the evidence and data produced should be genuine and reasonable [6]. As discussed, earlier Ms. Ramos has claimed that she had to face very abusive behavior from her previous partner which was very derogatory and sadistic. The applicant has also an argument that there is a strong possibility of being harassed and abused if she has to go back to the Philippines. Although the applicant had tried to make her arguments very enthusiastically the officials had observed that the contentions and facts were not genuine and sensible. Thus Ms. Ramos was abortive and unsuccessful in satisfying the criteria laid down in no further stay provision of the law commendably. In addition to it should be noted that the presented scenario would not lead to nay interfering influences of the Ministry of Delegates which is discussed under the provisions laid down under section 351 of Migration Act [7].

It could also be observed that as per the liabilities and obligations provided in the 2.05 (4) the persuasive event has happened after the dispensing of the visa. Hence it was been mentioned in the case by considering the stipulations that in the case the applicant has displayed any sort of individual reason or if the reasons and arguments made were not successful in satisfying the obligations laid down in the section then the waiver is not deemed to be allowed.

The jury had also stated in this case of Ramos v Minister of Migration that the party which applies should not try to have or possess any sort of control or influence over the undesirable circumstances which may occur in the future if the waiver is not allowed by the emissaries. As mentioned above in this letter Ms. Ramos has claimed that she had a very abusive relationship with her older companion who happened to be very aggressive. Although in spite of these provided arguments, she failed to convince the jury about her inability to control the circumstances. In this case, Ms. Ramos could have taken relevant and applicable actions. Hence this argument was not taken into consideration by the jury.

Hence, we strongly recommend you consider this case, as it displays a strong similarity with your case and most possibly be dealing with the same sections and stipulations provided which require a very diligent and meticulous interpretation.

Regards

References:
Australia, Multicultural. "Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs." (2016).

Beine, Michel, et al. "Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database." International Migration Review 50.4 (2016): 827-863.

Clibborn, Stephen. "Why undocumented immigrant workers should have workplace rights." The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26.3 (2015): 465-473.

Crock, Mary. Immigration and refugee law in Australia. Federation Press, 2018.

Dauvergne, Catherine. Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Missbach, Antje. "Making a" career" in people-smuggling in Indonesia: protracted transit restricted mobility and the lack of legal work rights." Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 30.2 (2015): 423-454.

Richards, Kelly, and Samantha Lyneham. "Help-seeking strategies of victim/survivors of human trafficking involving partner migration." Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 468 (2014): 1-10.

Clibborn, Stephen. "Why undocumented immigrant workers should have workplace rights." The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26.3 (2015): 465-473.

Crock, Mary. Immigration and refugee law in Australia. Federation Press, 2018.

Australia, Multicultural. "Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs." (2016).

Dauvergne, Catherine. Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Richards, Kelly, and Samantha Lyneham. "Help-seeking strategies of victim/survivors of human trafficking involving partner migration." Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 468 (2014): 1-10.

Beine, Michel, et al. "Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database." International Migration Review 50.4 (2016): 827-863.

Dauvergne, Catherine. Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.