Question 1: Jaspal, A Citizen Of India, Applied For A Subcla

The refusal of a visa application by the Australian Department of Home Affairs does not necessarily mark the end of the applicant’s legal options. Under Australian migration law, applicants have a statutory right to seek review of certain departmental decisions, including visa refusals, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). This tribunal functions as an independent body empowered to review the merits of such decisions, including procedural fairness, correctness, and substantive eligibility.

Jaspal is able to have the decision reviewed. The primary avenue available to him is to lodge an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under section 500 of the Migration Act 1958. This avenue is accessible for visa refusals, provided the review is lodged within set timeframes. The AAT reviews departmental decisions to determine whether they were made lawfully, reasonably, and in accordance with applicable laws and policy guidelines.

Regarding time limits, the general rule for lodging an appeal to the AAT is that an application must be filed within 21 days from the date the applicant is notified of the decision. In the context of email notification, as in Jaspal’s case, the 21-day period commences from the date he receives the email informing him of the refusal. Since Jaspal received the email on 15 July 2017, the last date for lodging his review application would be 5 August 2017, counting inclusively from the date of receipt. It is essential to note that the notification date is critical; therefore, any delay in receipt should be documented and considered separately.

The costs associated with lodging a review application before the AAT currently include a fee of approximately AUD $1,832 as of 2017. These fees are subject to change, and applicants can request a fee waiver or reduction if they demonstrate financial hardship. The review application is typically made using the AAT’s official application form, usually Form 1023 (Application for review of a visa decision). Jaspal, as the applicant, will be the review applicant unless he authorizes a migration agent or legal representative to act on his behalf. In such cases, the representative must have the appropriate authority and provide a signed authorisation form.

In the subsequent scenario, Jaspal informs you that his relationship with Irene has terminated. He requests that you lodge a review application and act on his behalf. You advise him that if the relationship has ended and is not continuing, there are minimal prospects of success for a partner visa application or review based on that relationship. Under the Migration Agents Code of Conduct, if you decide to act as his migration agent, you have specific professional obligations. These include acting competently, diligently, and ethically; providing clear written advice; maintaining client confidentiality; and ensuring that you do not promote or continue procedures that are not supported by factual or legal grounds. You also have to ensure that your conduct complies with statutory obligations, such as disclosure and transparency regarding fees and potential conflicts of interest, especially if you are aware that the basis for the initial application no longer exists.

Furthermore, acting in the best interests of your client and upholding integrity are core principles. If you are aware that the substantive grounds for the visa, namely the ongoing relationship, has ceased, you must counsel your client accordingly, and pursuing a review may be considered unethical or futile. The Code requires that migration agents act within their competence, provide honest advice, avoid misrepresentations, and comply with all legal obligations imposed by the relevant legislation and professional standards.

In conclusion, Jaspal can have the decision reviewed by the AAT within 21 days from notification, with the review application submitted using the prescribed form and paying the associated fee. If the relationship with Irene has ended, the prospects of success diminish, and ethical considerations under the Code of Conduct become relevant when acting as his migration agent.