Thank you for meeting with me this past week. I will provide you with my legal opinion and analysis so that you can make a qualified decision in timely manner in this situation. Firstly, I will provide you with an explanation of character test as it applies in your case and then I will give you my opinion whether Jorani has potential to get partner visa.
Any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia must satisfy the Department of Immigration & Border Protection (DIBP) that he/she is of good character. Most visas will require that applicant should pass certain public interest criteria set under Australian Migration Law and it is very important for visa applicant to satisfy the Minister that he/she passes the character test. Minister can refuse your visa if you do not pass the character test.
You fail the character test if you:
• have a substantial criminal record
You have substantial criminal record means that you have: o been sentenced to death or life imprisonment; or o received the sentence for 12 months or more; or o received two or more
…show more content…
She has no other criminal record either before or after this incident. This incident happened seven years ago and she is ashamed about her past criminal records. She is fully aware that her reckless decisions seven years ago are now affecting her new life. She wishes that she could go back in time and do things differently.
b) The risk to the Australian community if you commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Jorani is changed person now and as her police clearance certificate shows that the incident happened seven years ago. She never repeated her mistakes again and she is successfully running her business from last four years. She is fully aware of her foolish decision in past and how it is affecting her new life with her husband. She is a successful businesswoman now and she is not a risk to Australian
In the case of Tara Brown’s murder, various groups of individuals are affected. As well as maintaining principles of fair punishment and deterrence, the criminal justice system has to consider perceptions of the victim’s family (secondary victim), the community’s demand for crime prevention, and the offender’s rights to a fair court hearing. The most likely outcome is imprisonment for Lionel John Patea due to committing an indictable offence. It is important to note that if this was only a case of domestic abuse without murder, it would utilise more time, effort and expenses to come to a resolution. This is due to the different circumstances and degree of abuse that the judge has to assess.
On April 18, 2003, Scott Peterson was arrested and charged for the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner. Scott Peterson reported his wife missing on December 24, 2002. During which time Luci was seven-and half-months pregnant. Therefore, immediately after the report was made the detectives that were the lead investigator on the case, begin their investigation by collecting information from Scott Peterson concerning the where about of his wife. Peterson made a statement that he went out on his boat fishing doing the time of his wife disappearance which was 90 miles away from their Modesto home.
‘The Tampa Decision: Examining the Australian Government’s prerogative power to detain and expel unlawful non-citizens in 2001’ The executive power of the Commonwealth has largely been neglected, both by the High Court and by commentators, receiving scant attention in comparison with the Commonwealth 's legislative and judicial powers. However, it was just fourteen years ago, in 2001, when a Norwegian cargo vessel MV Tampa being denied entry into Australia after rescuing 438 asylum seekers sparked one of the most controversial yet illuminating civil cases in Australian legal history. The result was a civil suit (Ruddock vs Vadarlis 2001) in which the Federal Government successfully appealed the initial ruling to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, where it was found that the government does indeed possess a prerogative power to prevent the entry of non-citizens into
I worked in a number of factories in NSW, ACT and Queensland. In 2005, after been in Australia for few Months, I lodged in my family humanitarian application. Immediately, that application was rejected. The reason of rejection was not judicious for me. Thing like you had not met the criteria was not enough for me.
(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment to life for the crime of murder is to serve that sentence for the term of that person’s natural life. The fact that Katherine Knight was sentence to life imprisonment for the murder of John Price reflects society’s standards in that nobody should get away with taking somebody else’s life, especially in the way in which Katherine did. 6 THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE Once Katherine Knight pleaded guilty to the murder of John Price, the court was able to sentence her quite efficiently once all evidence was heard. The efficiency of this case and also the fact that Katherine Knight received the harshest penalty possible in Australia for her horrific crime shows how justice was achieved.
Australia has been labelled as the country of mateship, fair-go and tolerance, but the mistreatment of Asylum seekers in Australia denies these values. In our anthem we sing “For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”. It ironic isn’t it? As when Asylum seekers arrive in Australia we do not offer a hand of mateship instead we use punitive matters such as sending them to mandatory detention, which shows how xenophobia is manifested in Australia (Ariyawansa,
The USA has it’s own Immigration Laws that require “good moral character”, so if it was not his homeland, Chris Brown may have even been banned from America. Musicians such as Lily Allen and Boy George are banned from the country on grounds of violence, so such an outcome would not be surprising. Australia also has a history of non-tolerance, banning high profile and controversial characters such as rapper Tyler the Creator and champion boxer Floyd Mayweather, both relevant to the abuse of or misogyny against women. Australia should take pride in moving forward from our not so distant past of sexism and racial profiling, and accept a chance to do good and move forward to greater
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that ‘Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.’ Governments and then subsequently the courts, have a duty to ensure that a person 's freedom of movement is not unjustifiably restricted by others, including persons or companies. This right applies to all persons lawfully within Australian and not just Australian
The case of Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2013) 216 FCR 241 presents a valuable example of a real-life situation that highlights the significance of understanding and interpreting the law that applies to Australian Migration practice. The case was about whether a valid visa application has been made by the appellant in accordance with Regulations 2.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) which required applications for particular visa be made at an “office of immigration” in Australia. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE CASE: • The Minister did not consider Chen’s visa application for Class DF subclass 892 as valid because the application reached the Department’s Processing Centre one day after her existing
My most rewarding accomplishment consists of my ability to overcome the fear and weakness that was conceived upon my arrival to the United States from Mexico, in addition to a newly evolved character which allowed me to achieve academic, professional, and personal success. Nearly seven years ago, my mother and I immigrated from a harsh economic climate in Mexico that was plagued with unemployment. Additionally, our family faced bankruptcy. While holding onto our faith, we left our hometown with only what we could carry and bought two one-way bus tickets. With nothing more than fear, two bags, and $50 in each of our pockets, we set out for what would be the most challenging journey of our lives.
First generation immigrants sacrifice their adulthood in search of a better life for their family and for future generations to come. My father came from Peru to support his family. He was the first person in his family to come to America. He works in road construction from morning until night so that my family is supported. The desire to repay both of my parents is the belief that guides my life.
Due to ill health, Mr Jenkins had to return to Australia along with his wife in 18 months. Mr Jenkins contention was that if normal circumstances prevailed, they would have applied for an extension after the three years elapse. There was no fixed date on which to return to Australia as well. Though, there was another contention that, three years cannot be regarded as temporary if a longer duration won’t sensibly be regarded as such. The intention here is a major determinant of the outcome of the
Coming from a low income family, living in a small town in India, I learned early on about struggling and surviving those struggles. I watched my parents working day and night to provide for electricity, pay for our monthly school fees so my sister and I can have a better education, and for the future they wished upon for their children. To further enhance this vision, my father decided for the family and I to immigrate to the US. Everything was different in the sense that I changed schools, learned a new language, had to make new friends, and learned the different culture. I had to adapt to a whole new world, which was a little difficult at 6 years old
Eligibility is subject to two separate tests and both must be passed in order to qualify for legal aid in a Magistrates’ Court. The Interests of Justice test under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 enquires how serious the offence is and includes factors such as losing liberty or livelihood. In Sue’s case she would not be likely to lose any liberty due to the fact it is a speeding offence and an affordable fine is set out. If it involves interviewing, tracing or expert cross-examination of witnesses then she would be eligible, however, because it is a speeding offence often completed with machinery that is fully checked regularly this is unlikely. She does not pass the Interests of Justice test and this therefore means she is not eligible for
My concern doesn’t come from nowhere. In the past year, he hasn’t put much efforts into looking for jobs in Australia. He focused on making money and his currently job. For three months, he is still in preparation of resume!