Migration Regulations 1994 - Minh Law Case Study Assessment Answer

Question one
ASSESSMENT ONE
Minh is a citizen of Vietnam who had been living in Australia since 2015. On 22 April 2018, Minh had his permanent Partner visa (subclass 801) cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by a delegate of the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’). This was because he had a substantial criminal record and was serving a sentence of imprisonment in Australia for an offence against an Australian law. Minh had earlier received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the commercial supply of a prohibited drug in Australia.
On 28 April 2018, Minh sought revocation of the delegate’s mandatory visa cancellation and provided evidence in support, based on his personal circumstances. On 1 November 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation, despite Minh’s request.
On 20 February 2019, Minh unsuccessfully challenged the Minister’s decision not to revoke the visa cancellation in the Federal Court of Australia. Minh was ordered to pay the legal costs of the Department to the sum of $30,000.
Consequently, Minh was removed from Australia and sent back to Vietnam on 1 March 2019 (as a result of his permanent Partner visa (subclass 801) earlier being cancelled).
Minh is seeking to return to Australia. While completing a visa application which was lodged in July 2019, Minh ticked a box indicating that he had ‘no criminal convictions’. However, further investigation by a delegate from the Department revealed that Minh had been incarcerated twice in the past five years.
When asked about ticking ‘no’ to the question relating to criminal convictions, Minh stated that he thought criminal convictions only referred to violent crimes.
Answer the following questions:
1. a)  What legal effect would Minh’s visa cancellation have for him in relation to his ability to return to Australia at some point in the future? 
2. b)  In light of Minh’s explanation for ticking ‘no’ to the question related to criminal convictions in his visa application, discuss whether Minh is likely to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020 in the Migration Regulations 1994.

Question two
Lina (‘the visa applicant’) applied to the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa on 1 July 2019. The visa applicant seeks to be granted a Subclass 101 (Child) visa (‘the visa application’).
The visa applicant was 18 years of age on the day the visa application was lodged. Sofia (‘the visa applicant’s mother’) became an Australian citizen in July
2018. The visa applicant’s mother is seeking to sponsor the visa applicant to live with her in Australia.
On 17 August 2019, the visa applicant moved to Berlin with a view to study at a university in October 2019. Before moving to Berlin, the visa applicant lived with Robert (‘the visa applicant’s father’) and Ben (‘the visa applicant’s older brother’) in the family home owned by her father in rural Germany.
The visa applicant’s father spent approximately two days per week with the visa applicant and the visa applicant’s older brother, and spent the rest of the time with his new wife. The visa applicant’s mother regularly sent the visa applicant money to pay for most of her food (to eat at home and at school), her monthly mobile phone bills, her travel costs, her clothes and also her school fees (when she was at school).
The visa applicant’s father purchased food and cooked for the visa applicant occasionally, using the money the visa applicant received from her mother for this purpose. The visa applicant’s father also occasionally provided the visa applicant with food he grew on his property in rural Germany. The visa applicant’s mother came to Australia when the visa applicant was approximately 14 years old and since that time has continued to send her money almost every month by money transfer. There is documentary evidence of numerous money transfers from the visa applicant’s mother to the visa applicant.
In light of the preceding, answer the following questions:
1. a)  Discuss whether the visa applicant was a ‘dependent child’ of her mother at the time the visa application was lodged, pursuant to reg 1.03 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 
2. b)  If the visa applicant had a casual job at the time the visa application was lodged, would this be relevant in assessing the visa application? 

This Law Assessment has been solved by our Law experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.