In migration And Immigration Law Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the In migration And Immigration Law. Answer: Do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis In migration and immigration law, the term determination of living separately and apart on a permanent basis is determined if the marriage is legal, a registered relationship and may also include a de facto relationship which ceases to exist. The partners of the relationship cease to be treated as members of a couple. [1]By definition, living separately and apart is determined when a legally married couple who are in a registered marital institution, are by measures put in place determined to be living separately and apart indefinitely or on a permanent basis and a deemed to be separated. The general provisions of this law is determined if a couple claim that There is a breakdown in their marriage or an estrangement of the same, and They have established that they are living separately indefinitely or the separation is permanent. In migration law, it states that the physical and emotional separation is required to be seen between the couple. There are other conditions which should generally not be accepted if a couple is living separately. These includes; living separately because of ill-health, economic reasons like unemployment between one partner or the both of them or any other issues that may arise. Any other option should be determined and explored to establish the cause and reason for a married couple to live separately and permanently. The determination of an illness in separated couple The law states that a couple may be determined to be living separately and apart where one couple is living in an approved institution example a nursing home to reside there on a full time basis or a permanent basis.[2] The cause of the residence is due to a debilitating illness or a severe condition like the Huntingtons disease, the Alzheimer disease(ALS advanced stages) or maybe a mental disorder. De jure A de jure or a legally married couple can only be determined if the marriage is legalized. Members of a couple who have a debilitating condition or illness like the Huntingtons disease or the ALS advanced are cognizant of the fact that the other partner is physically, emotionally and mentally incapable of responsibly participating in a couples relationship.[3] They do not therefore meet the criteria of determining a member of a couple. In this case, the conclusion reached in a couple living separately after being affected a disease and institutionalized is; the conclusion should be reached if; The incapacitation of a partner is severe and the disease is of a permanent nature eg the ALS The partner institutionalized no longer gives the other partner companionship, emotional, physical and intellectual support and comfort. There are conditions where the factors do not invalidate living apart and separately; the factors include The other partner does visit the institutionalized partner on basis which is regular He or she provides financial supports to the partner financially Taken no action in filling for a separation through a legal divorce Under the law, the assessment is; Individuals living separately and apart are deemed to be single and paid a single rate of income. Only one individual does income and asset assessment test. Federal Court in SZOXP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection full decision in context Background of the case It was interesting that the applicant chose not to live in the same house with the sponsor because of religious beliefs. The applicant citizenship is of the peoples republic of china. [4]He therefore filled a partners visa application due to his relationship which is de facto with the sponsor in the year 2012 October. The couple was in a relationship and had married for a month after the application of the visa. Immigration department on the other hand had refused to give them the visa they applied for on grounds that they must give evidence that they were together prior to the application of visa. The department refused to give the visa application on grounds that the sponsor and the applicant had not lived in a de facto relationship. This was a conclusion by one of the officer[5]. The application had undergone a very long a tedious process for assessment of the partners offshore visa. The department claims that it had not been informed about the marriage and it did not approve application of the visa on marital basis. When the refusal of the application of the visa was brought in before MRT, it was found by the tribunal that the couples had indeed stayed together since 2011 December. Both parties prophesied Buddhism and initially decided to get into the precepts of Buddhism which advocate against cohabiting or living together. MRT tribunal found that the de facto relationship requirements had been fully satisfied. They were now living together and therefore there was no basis of denying them the visa they had applied for. In migration law, it states that the physical and emotional separation is required to be seen between the couple. There are other conditions which should generally not be accepted if a couple is living separately. [6]These includes; living separately because of ill-health, economic reasons like unemployment between one partner or the both of them or any other issues that may arise The federal court only reviewed the language of the law and the migration Act and found that if the couple proved proof of cohabiting, it simply does not establish the basis for a de facto relationship. Under the Act section 5CB, a person is deemed to be in a defacto relationship if There is a mutual commitment to shared life and the exclusion of all others, A continuing and genuine relationship And they have to show if they have lived together or have not live separately and apart in a permanent basis. Decision/ Rulling The court found that interpretation of statutory law should not be read as if there contains additional words. The ministers submission of section 5BC should be interpreted from the express wording. The statutory interpretation principles The principle that were applied by federal judges in construing the phrase are; that the legal defination of the Act do not say that the couples should have cohabited. The court in this case applied the interpretation of additional words in the principles of statutory interpretation.[7] The additional words would be too much at a variance with the language in the legislative wording. The federal court ruled that the ministers submissions in this sections should be analysed as if it included a requirement which is absent from the literal wording section. The court gave an example of this wording crashed and burned and went down in flames as an example of the literal wording interpretation of the legislature. The federal court only reviewed the language of the law and the migration Act and found that if the couple proved proof of cohabiting, it simply does not establish the basis for a de facto relationship. Under the Act section 5CB, a person is deemed to be in a relationship which is de facto relationship when There is a commitment which should be mutual and life sharing and there should be no other party, A continuing and relationship which is genuine have to show if they have lived together or have not live separately and apart in a basis which is permanent. General provisions of this law is determined if a couple claim that There is a breakdown in their marriage or an estrangement of the same, and They have established that they are living separately indefinitely or the separation is permanent. In migration law, it states that the physical and emotional separation is required to be seen between the couple. The sponsor and the applicant premised the application of the document on the rate of a de jure relationship at the event of visa application. They were intending to get married when they lodged the visa application when in truth they had already married for a month. The controversy entirely and wholeley should have already been rectified if they had argued on a prospective marriage to get the visa or they should have waited for a month and applied for the visa on basis that they are actually legally de jure or married[8]. The federal courts interpretation is that under the legislation itnot a problem if the sponsor and the applicant do not References Attwood, Bain, Andrew Markus and Bain Attwood,The 1967 Referendum(Aboriginal Studies Press, 2007) Crock, Mary E and Laurie Berg,Immigration, Refugees And Forced Migration(Federation Press, 2011) Easteal, Patricia Weiser,Less Than Equal(Butterworths, 2001) Immigration Legislation(LexisNexis NZ, 2009) Nettelbeck, Amanda et al,Fragile Settlements PROPER, EMBERSON EDWARD,COLONIAL IMMIGRATION LAWS(FORGOTTEN BOOKS, 2016) Vrachnas, John,Migration And Refugee Law(Cambridge University Press, 2012) White, Michael W. D,Australian Offshore Laws(Federation Press, 2009)