Immigration and Citizenship Contract Law

Question: Discuss about the Immigration and Citizenship for Contract Law. Answer: 1A. Pursuant to section 116(1b) the minister may cancel a visa where its holder has not complied with the conditions of the visa. The condition is one that is imposed by law and it concerns work restrictions on the student visa.[1] The cancelation of Mr. Sandeeps visa has been triggered by his defiant character of not obeying the law imposed by the conditions in the student visa. It may be concede that Mr. Sandeep does not hold the student visa anymore since the visa has been completely canceled after the issuing of the noticeand even if it was existing there is still a restriction on the visa that he is not allowed to work. Further, the application he has lodged fro the partnership visa is still pending awaiting response. Mr. Sandeep can apply for Bridging visa C BVC (subclass 030).[2] This visa will allow him to continue staying in Australia, while his application for partnership visa is being. However, he will not be allowed to work under this visa and be required to apply for another bridging visa. To obtain a bridging visa which allows him to work he will have to prove that he is under certain financial hardship and that it is necessary for him to work. 1B. It is submitted that the minister may refuse the application of a visa based on the ground that there has been a breach of any law or non compliance.[3] A wanting character in this case refers to where an individual does not abide to the law of Australia. The visa refusal may have been due to the fact that there could be is sufficient reason to believe that Miss Wen chen has broken the law or is engaging in a full time work activity contrary to the provisions of the law. However it is noted that her earlier student visa still subsists but it only allows her to work for 40hours per every fortnight. Ms. Wen Chens case there has been a refusal for the partnership. She can in this situation apply for the review of such an order and while the order is being reviewed she will be automatically given a bridging visa which will allow her to stay in the country.[4] If the minister is satisfied that there is compelling need to work she will be allowed to work during this period of time. Cancellation power the Department is most likely to be employing in the NOICC The Visa that Andrew had acquired was a Permanent Employer Sponsored Visa program which had the condition that he should not leave the employment is sponsoring him. The department relied on the power bestowed upon them of cancelling a visa where a condition required by the visa has not been complied[5]or where there had been an insignificant breach of the law.[6] Is this type of cancellation mandatory? If yes, explain why; if not, on what basis could Andrew seek to avoid the cancellation? The cancellation is not a mandatory cancellation because Andrewss character has not been brought to question because of a breach of law in Australia. The cancellation is mandatory only where the department has sufficient reason to believe that the visa holder a criminal .It has been held inDai v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[7] that the non compliance of the condition will be justified where it is shown that the holder of the visa was incapacitated from ensuring its compliance by factors beyond his control. Class RN subclass 187 Regional Skilled Migration Scheme visa allows the person holding the visa to stay in Australian with the family. It should be noted that there is no obligation that there is no obligation placed on the family members to stay in Australia. However, where such a visa is cancelled the family members of the visa holder will also be affected and will have to leave the country too. Bibliography Dai v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Migration Act 1958(cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (cth)