Legislation and Cases Topic 1 – What is Admin Law Haneef v Minister for immigration and citizenship XXXXXXXXXXFCR 40 Guiseppe v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations XXXXXXXXXXFCR 465 Plaintiff...

1 answer below »

Legislation and Cases

Topic 1 – What is Admin Law

  • Haneef v Minister for immigration and citizenship (2007) 161 FCR 40

  • Guiseppe v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations (2007) 160 FCR 465

  • Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144

Topic 2 – Delegated Legislation

  • Subordinate legislation Act 1989 (Excluding Schedule 4)

  • Legislation Act 2003 – ss3, 8(2)-(6), 11(1), 15G, 15J, 15K, 17, 19, 38, 39, 42(1), 50.

Topic 3 – Judicial Review

  • Project blue sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28

  • SAT FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1997) 75 FCR 604

  • 75(v) Commonwealth Constitution

  • Judiciary Act 1903 - S 44(2A), s39B(1). S39B(1ac)

  • Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (CTH) – ss3(1), ss5-6, s8(1)-(2), s13, s16, Schedule 1

  • Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – s44AA

Topic 4 – Ultra Vires

  • Thompson v Randwick Municipal Council (1950) 81 CLR 87

  • Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24

  • Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33 + (1980) 44 FLR 41

  • Minister for Immigration and multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam [2002] HLA 32

  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1KB 223

  • South Australia v Tanner (1989) 166 CLR 161

Topic 5/6 – Procedural Fairness

  • Kioa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 159 CLR 550

  • Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615

  • Bond v Australian Broadcasting tribunal (No 2) (1988) 19 FCR 494

  • VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Indigenous affairs [2005] HCA 72

  • Haoucher v Minister for Immigration (1990) 169 CLR 648

  • Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273

  • Re Minister for immigration and multicultural Affairs; ex p Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1

  • Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (2015) 90 ALJR 25

Re Macquarie University; Ex parte Ong (1989) 17 NSWLR 113

The following is a number of extracted provisions from the (fictional)


Act 1959

(Cth). Please see the questions which then follow.

Section 29

(1) Subject to this Act, the Minister may grant a non-citizen permission, to be

known as a visa, to do either or both of the following:

(a) travel to and enter Australia;

(b) remain in Australia…

Answered Same DayDec 14, 2019

Answer To: Legislation and Cases Topic 1 – What is Admin Law Haneef v Minister for immigration and citizenship...

David answered on Dec 24 2019
148 Votes
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
Specific issues observed    3
Rules to be implemented    5
Application of the following rules    6
Provision of remedies    7
Conclusion    8
References    9
Migration Act of 1958 (Cth) deals with the procedure that immigrant can follow while seeking asylum in Australia. Section 29 of Migration Act 1958 deals with visa section that can be granted to a person w
ho is seeking to travel and reside in Australia. This particular law facilitate people who is seeking to reside in Australia can be safeguarded under protection visas mentioned in section 36 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth). However, section 504 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) states that the decision of government is final in this case. This legal assignment deals with legal problem faced by an Indian couple who is seeking an asylum in Australia.
Specific issues observed
The issues that Indian couple S and H faced while seeking residence in Australia:
Jurisdiction and Justifiability matter in regulation:
As mentioned in section 29 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth), a person or people seeking to travel or reside in Australia can be granted visa [footnoteRef:2]. In respect to the mentioned section, the specific issue observed in case of S and H is the minister of Australia refused to grant the couple visa, as she was not at all satisfied with the reason given by couple to immigrate in Australia. The couple stated that their families residing in India might not accept their secret marriage. In respect to the claim, minister of Australia clearly stated there are no such laws regarding persecution in India. As mentioned in section 36 of Migration Act of 1958, the person seeking asylum in Australia can be protected with protection visa subject to certain conditions [footnoteRef:3]. Among which, people will have to satisfy the minister of Australia by portraying as refugee and satisfying all the criteria such as no criminal offence to reside in Australia. In relation to the case of S and H, Australian investigators on investigations found that both S and H have distant relatives residing at different countries. In relation to H, Australian investigators have found that H has close connection with Tamil Tigers. Therefore, granting the couple an asylum can pose a significant threat to Australian residents. [2: Hyndman, Patricia  ‘Australian Immigration Law and Procedures Pertaining to the Admission of Refugees’ (2013) 33 Immigration Law and Procedures, 716.
] [3: McKay, Leanne,  ‘Women asylum seekers in Australia: discrimination and the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 6) 2001 (Cth)’ (2013) 4 Melbourne International Law, 439
Regulational validity in judicial perspective:
As mentioned under section 29 (aa), the immigrants who are willing to take asylum in Australia have to satisfy the Australian Government regarding immigrant’s background [footnoteRef:4]. In case of S and H, it is observed that the reason for immigration of both S and H are not clear to Australian government. This is because of two reasons; firstly, there are no laws regarding persecution against secret marriages in India and secondly, there is H is linked to antisocial group of a foreign country. These two reasons are observed as specific issues for Australian government to deem that both S and H do not deserve the protection visa. However, it can be challenged to court if the person who is accused thinks that the accusations made against are not true. In aspect to this, both S and H thinks that relocating to India at that moment will be impractical and H strongly denied the claim that she is associated with antisocial groups of foreign country. [4: Migration Act 1958. (2 December 2017)
Jurisdiction and Justifiability matter in refusal of protection visa:
Section 29 (3) of Migration Act clearly states the immigrants seeking asylum in Australia will have to satisfy all terms and conditions of Australian Government before being granted a protection visa[footnoteRef:5]. In reference to this specific section, Australian Government refuses Indian couple S and H protection visa. This is because...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here