No AI Generated Content
Introduction: Analysis of the Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Case: Visa Application Fraud and Legal Proceedings in Australia
Get Free Samples Written by our Top-Notch Subject Expert Writers known for providing the No.1 Assignment writing services in Australia
Visa is an official document that permits individuals to live in another country legally. Individuals have to apply for their visa application, under border protection law, and the Immigration minister's code the authorities verify the applicant's past history, application reason, and eligibilities before allowing the visa. Every county has its own policies and minimum requirements, and the applicants need to fulfill the requirements to complete the visa policies. It allows individuals to travel internationally and legally, of course, it has some rules and restrictions, which may vary country basis. This case analysis is based on the country Australia and its “Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection” law. According to the procedure and practice say the visa applicants have to appeal the amended notice to leave, the leave will be granted if the applicants should raise a left ground without running below. There can also be fraud cases; the applicant needs to verify the cases by applying the appeal to the government or the court.
Discussion and analysis
Court orders
The applicants appealed their visa application which was responded to by the “Administrative Appeals Tribunal” and “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”. The court has ordered that the appeal applied by the applicant has been allowed, which relies upon the notice of the amendment. The orders from “Federal Circuit Cort” has made including the costs, can be seated aside (Prenzler,2019). According to the code, this matter will be remitted to the “Federal Circuit Cort” for decision. The first applicant has to pay the appeal cost.
Judgment reasons
The appeal needs to visit the “Court” to assume results of an apparent forgery perpetrated on the “visa applicant” during the “visa application” procedure. The appellants left their current backgrounds of sought and appeal to depend on one basis of the appeal. Their submission appeared like a result of the conclusions. “The Minister” objects to exit standing presented to appellants for depending on the fresh ground. According to “the court”, they would grant leave to the applicants if they depend on a single ground. If there is no evidence of submitting the documents to the “Medical officer of the Commonwealth”, a minister, an officer, or “Migration Review Tribunal” and if the information or documents is related to visa application then the visa applied by the applicant can be held in 12 months periods before it was made. To evade suspicion, sub clause can be applied whether or not “The Minister” evolved conscious of the fake information or document that is inaccurate or fake in a fabric special because of details provided by the applicant (Singh and Jain, 2020). “The Minister” can waive the necessity of all or any sections and sub clause if it satisfies compelling or compassionates the circumstances which can affect Australian citizen’s interests, or it may impact the national interests of Australia.
There are some procedures to justify granting the visa. In this case, if the given information is found to be misleading or false the court will take action, the fake information includes it can be false when it was submitted, and it may be related to any situations that the Minister can consider to make decisions on the applications. The court verifies the applicant and their family details if they have enough funds to stay in Australia during their living period or not. The total expenses include living costs, living expenses of family costs, tuition costs, school costs, treatment costs, fare costs, etc. If the applicant agrees with this question and verifies the details the court proceeds with the next procedures. The documents are sent to the department in the form of the application (Tariq et al. 2019). This includes certificates, medical certificates, money statements, and academic transcripts. The department verifies all the details of the applicant. After submitting the application the department seeks further information, the needed information includes financial requirements (the money statement of the sufficient funds). The financial support can be provided by qualified family members. “Evidence Act 2008, 140” supplies the ideal proof of application in the civil cases. “Federal Court of Australia Act 1976” lists the appellate authority of the “Federal Court o Australia”.
The communication stated that “all applicants must demonstrate at least a 3-month saving history of their funds. The saving history is calculated for the 3 months period immediately before the lodgment of the application.” the applicant must provide bank statement pages, relationship certificate, x-ray, and medical report of the applicants, balance certificate, letter of financial support statement. The bank statement refers to an “Immigration office overseas for verification”. The required further details include residential address, account opening date, contact no of the applicant, and account holder. The appellants pursued a study of the representative’s conclusion in “the Tribunal” when the application was made (Levi, 2021). In that examination, the appellants concluded two statements before “the Tribunal”. The foremost is “the Tribunal should be satisfied that the appellants met the PIC 4020 criteria”, and the next one is “if the Tribunal was satisfied they did not meet those criteria, it should waive the requirements in PIC 4020(1) as the Tribunal was authorized to do by PIC 4020(4)”. Though “the Tribunal” was rejected each argument.
Resolution
If the applicants desire to depart to extend the next single basis of the appeal and if it is proved that they didn’t push the bases in current statement of appeal. “The Federal Circuit Court” stated by not selecting “jurisdictional fact”, whether the forgery case had disproved the “visa application” or “visa application process”. The “appellants” were given temporary break to file the submitted notification of request in “the Court” at “appeal hearing”. “The Minister” did not claim that they had inadequate warning of the “proposed ground”, it certainly marketed primarily with “proposed ground” in the registered proposals. The “general guides” navigating the determination of it can be permitted or not to ground to be presented on request which was not conducted below that are well fixed (Mahtani, 2022). “The Minister” can waive the necessity of all or any sections and sub clause if it satisfies compelling or compassionates the circumstances which can affect Australian citizen’s interests, or it may impact the national interests of Australia. Individuals have to apply for their visa application, under border protection law, and the Immigration minister's code the authorities verify the applicant's past history, application reason, and eligibilities before allowing the visa.
Analysis
This case analysis is based on the country Australia and its “Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection” law. The primary conclusion depended on the primary judge. Second, the “primary judge” figured that the disregard for the fabrication of the applicant was kept without their awareness. Third, the primary judge considered that the applicant did not mention in the oral or written submission of this ground address. It is also not clear the reason for the claim of the applicant. The court stated that “Such inquiry would not have been relevant to whether the fraudulent bank statements were fake documents” (Franks, 2020). The applicant should take the chance to pursue to prove their allegation but there are no proper “visa applications” because of the forgery case caused by a “third party” on her, which obstructs examination and resolution of the “visa application” in the conformity with procedures established in “Migration Act”. It isn’t in the claims of the authority of the magistrate that the applicant is denied that possibility. The department verifies all the details of the applicant. After submitting the application the department seeks further information, the needed information includes financial requirements (the money statement of the sufficient funds).
“The Minister” objects to exit being presented to the appellants for depending on the new ground. According to the court, they would grant leave to the applicants if they depend on a single ground. It is very important to know the decisions in “Singh and Gill”. In both cases, the applicant has poor English skills. In “Gill”, the “appellant” provided proof to “Federal Circuit Court” to the consequence that he spoke to the “migration agent” he desired to learn “English” or learn cookery (King, 2019). Again including paying the agent a significant quantity of cash he fled the “conduct of the visa application” to the dealer. In both issues, the agent acquired. what “the Tribunal” found to be dishonest means, talents reviews per “visa applicant” and involvement on behalf of professional work permits.
The appellants have achieved a win, and “the Minister” has resisted both granting the permission to depart and the statements which were made by appellants, that is proper “the Minister” bear the appellants’ expenses of the request. “Tribunal” encountered the agent that had performed fraudulently and maintained manufactured. “The Federal Circuit Court,” asked the involved groups to file registered recommendations involving the value of that judgment to the issues before the “Federal Circuit Court”, and both groups took that suggestion. In the current process, there is no proof of other or one way whether the “Federal Circuit Court” was conscious of the “Full Court’s” conclusions in “Singh and Gill” (Oana, 2018). Clearly, neither the appellants nor “the Minister” present to “the Court” that any group removed “the Federal Circuit Court’s” awareness of the two conclusions, and neither “Singh nor Gill” is directed to the “Federal Circuit Court’s” grounds for the conclusion.
Conclusion
The request must be permitted and the issue should be forwarded to the “Federal Circuit Court” for resolution in conformity with “the Court’s” grounds. Before “Federal Circuit Court”, appellants have to pay the cost of verifying that the scam was a fake performed on the applicant. The appellants need to verify that the request of those scheming records supplied by the “Nepalese agent” to their “migration agent” and after that to the “Minister’s” representative obstructed the “visa application” and resolution procedures for the “Migration Act” delivers. The attorney for the appellants correctly acknowledged that provided new ground is raised. It is not reasonable to replace charges for expenses in turn of the individuals before the “Federal Circuit Court”. The present expenses declaration in “Federal Circuit Court” would be placed side and groups should pay fees before the “Federal Circuit Court”. Therefore, there are no extra costs charges will be needed.
References
Journals
Prenzler, T., 2019. What works in fraud prevention: a review of real-world intervention projects. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice.
Singh, A. and Jain, A., 2020. A Novel Framework for Credit Card Fraud Prevention and Detection (CCFPD) Based on Three Layer Verification Strategy. In Proceedings of ICETIT 2019 (pp. 935-948). Springer, Cham.
Tariq, A., Haq, H.B. and Ali, S.T., 2019. Cerberus: A blockchain-based accreditation and degree verification system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06812.
Levi, M. and Smith, R.G., 2021. Fraud and its relationship to pandemics and economic crises: From Spanish flu to COVID-19. Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mahtani, U., 2022. Fraudulent Practices and Blockchain Accounting Systems. Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, 23(1), pp.97-148.
Kurshan, E., Shen, H. and Yu, H., 2020, September. Financial crime & fraud detection using graph computing: Application considerations & outlook. In 2020 Second International Conference on Transdisciplinary AI (TransAI) (pp. 125-130). IEEE.
Franks, C. and Smith, R.G., 2020. National Identity Security Strategy: Identity crime and misuse in Australia 2019. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice, (603).
King, D., 2019. The future of us fraud in a post-emv environment. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Oana, F.I., 2018. Economic Fraud in International Business: Forms and Implications. Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, 18(1), pp.12-16.
Grant-Smith, D., Feldman, A. and Cross, C., 2022. Key trends in employment scams in Australia: What are the gaps in knowledge about recruitment fraud. QUT Centre for Justice Briefing Papers, 21.
