Abdul Ahmad Is A Citizen Of Malaysia Abdul Has Been Involved

Abdul Ahmad Is A Citizen Of Malaysia Abdul Has Been Involved

Abdul Ahmad, a Malaysian citizen with a long-standing presence in the infrastructure business, faces the threat of visa refusal under section 501 of the Australian Migration Act due to a past criminal conviction. The case involves complex considerations of character, Australian immigration law, and the distinction between past misconduct and reform. This submission aims to argue that Abdul and Yasmin’s visa application should not be refused, outlines alternative visa options should the application be refused, and discusses the ethical obligations in providing counsel.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The Australian migration framework emphasizes the importance of character assessment, especially under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This provision grants the Minister discretionary power to refuse or cancel visas based on character considerations, particularly past criminal conduct. Abdul Ahmad and Yasmin’s application for a Contributory Parent visa subclass 143 raises concerns, primarily due to Abdul’s criminal history linked to corruption charges from over 30 years ago. However, a nuanced approach considering reform, contributions, and the unique circumstances can be adopted to argue against refusal.

Legal Background and Evaluation of Section 501

Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 grants the Minister broad discretion to refuse visas if an applicant is deemed of bad character or poses a risk to the Australian community. The criteria involve past criminal conduct, including convictions, and the time elapsed since these events. The Parliament’s intention is to protect Australia’s social and legal fabric but also to allow for discretion in exceptional rehabilitative cases. Recent case law emphasizes that a past conviction, especially one that has been addressed through reform, does not automatically warrant visa refusal (Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. Haneef [2014] FCAFC 100).

Assessment of Abdul’s Past Conduct and Reformation

Abdul’s criminal conviction for corruption, which resulted in a two-year sentence, was over 30 years ago. He has since demonstrated substantial reformation by creating charitable foundations in Malaysia and Singapore, supporting social causes such as women’s refuges, and donating significant profits to hospitals. These actions demonstrate a commitment to societal betterment, remorse, and reform. Australian courts and tribunals recognize that genuine rehabilitation can mitigate the impact of past misconduct, especially when the individual has contributed positively to society (Pillay v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1253).

Arguments Against Refusal under Section 501

The core argument is that Abdul’s past is mitigated by his extensive charitable work and societal contributions over decades. The criminal conviction, although serious, was a product of the business practices commonplace in Malaysia at that time, which his company has since rectified. Furthermore, Abdul’s longstanding ties to family—his wife, Australian sons-in-law, and grandchildren—highlight ongoing social and familial integration. The wellbeing of his grandchild with severe Down Syndrome underscores his genuine family commitments. The Department's refusal based solely on Abdul’s past conviction would overlook these factors, which demonstrate his current character and likelihood of compliance with visa conditions.

Additional Considerations

It is also pertinent to consider that Abdul’s conduct of paying a fee to government officials was normalized in his business environment three decades ago but has since been abandoned. The Department has acknowledged that a single past act does not invariably justify refusal if the individual shows meaningful rehabilitation. Abdul’s established charity work and social contributions provide compelling evidence of positive character, aligning with the principles outlined in the case law on assessing character, including the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation (Karanakaran v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 78).

Conclusion and Recommendations

Given the above, it is advised that the Minister’s discretion be exercised with regard to Abdul’s evidence of reform, ongoing family commitments, and societal contributions. The arguments should emphasize that the past misconduct, while serious, does not reflect Abdul’s current character and that refusal would unjustly penalize him for events long in the past. An effective submission would request the Minister to exercise compassion and consider Abdul’s rehabilitation and familial ties, aligning with Australia’s values of fairness, integration, and social responsibility.

Alternative Visa Options

If the application is refused under section 501, Abdul and Yasmin may consider applying for other visas. A potential option is the Australian Bridging Visa, which allows continued legal stay while other visa options are explored. They could also pursue family reunification through a different pathway, such as a bridging family visa or a permanent community or humanitarian visa, depending on evolving circumstances. Additionally, the Special Residence or Humanitarian visas might be available if extraordinary compassionate grounds are established, for instance, proximity needs related to Heather with Down Syndrome or ongoing family and community ties.

Obligations Under the Code of Conduct in Legal Advice

As legal practitioners advising Abdul and Yasmin, it is essential to uphold the highest standards of professional integrity and honesty mandated by the Code of Conduct. This includes providing clear, objective, and transparent advice about the likelihood of success, potential risks, and available options. We must ensure that clients understand the basis of our arguments, the discretionary nature of the Minister’s powers, and that predictions of success are made with due caution, emphasizing factors relevant to public interest and individual circumstances. Maintaining independence, confidentiality, and acting in the best interests of clients are fundamental obligations under the legal profession’s ethical codes.

Conclusion

In summary, Abdul Ahmad’s case presents a scenario where past conduct should not preclude him from entering Australia, especially given his significant reform and societal contributions. A well-structured submission highlighting these facts, coupled with alternative visa pathways if necessary, fulfills both legal and ethical standards. Upholding integrity and professional responsibility ensures that our advice aligns with both Australian legal principles and the client's best interests.

References

  • Australian Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
  • Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. Haneef [2014] FCAFC 100.
  • Pillay v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1253.
  • Karanakaran v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 78.
  • Australian Law Reform Commission, "Reforming Australia's Character Test," ALRC Report 127 (2010).
  • Glaubitz, T., & Sheehy, D. (2017). "Rehabilitation and migrant character assessments in Australia," Journal of Immigration Law & Policy, 29(4), 451–468.
  • Corruption and Business in Malaysia: Historical Perspectives (2020). Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies.
  • Australian Department of Home Affairs, "Character requirements for visa applicants," 2023.
  • Stewart, R. (2018). "Assessing Reformation: International Approaches to Character Considerations," International Journal of Migration and Integration.
  • Australian Government, "Guidelines for the exercise of Ministerial Discretion under section 501," 2022.

Related Assignments