Australian Migration Law
Australian Migration Law
Volonski vs. Migration Agents Registration Authority case of 2010 was one of the cases in Australia that involved complicated issues of migration. In this case the applicant was Mr. Aurthur Volonski and the respondent was Migration Agents Registration Authority. The applicant was not presented by any party while MARA was presented by the solicitor Ms Alice Linacre.
History Outline that Led to the Hearing
The applicant, Mr. Arthur Volonski had served as a registration agent in the migration from the year 1988. His application expired in various intervals and he applied successfully after each expiry. However, in the 2007 MARA refused the application from the individual since his integrity as an agent was highly questionable. The claims were raised by MARA through the application of section 290, which raised a number of concerns regarding the applicant. One of the concerns was that the applicant had failed to notify the institution that he had been convicted and made false declarations concerning the convictions in question. Mr.Volonski also failed to notify the institution that he had convicted of a criminal offense that was related to an assault in the year 2001. The party also did not act in the legal interests of the clients that he served, hence failing to serve the clients with the competency, dignity, and the diligence that was expected from him. He therefore, contravened the provisions of codes of conduct that regulated the activities of the migration agents in Australia. The provisions also found the applicant to have failed to exercise due regard to the clients conditions based on his experience and knowledge (Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 2010).
Mr. Volonski also acted contrary to the provisions of the Migration Act by encouraging his clients to execute applications that were not valid since the applications were not conducted according to the required procedures under the act. For instance, he did not give proper advice to the client on how to write and obtain the required acknowledgement from him as the agent in charge of migration.
How the Applicant Contravened the Law and Breached the Code of Conduct
Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had pleaded guilty for common assault, the applicant confessed to the institution that he was not aware that he had committed a crime that amounted to assault in 2001. The applicant was not ready to embrace the fact that he had appeared before a court of law for the crime and pleaded guilty. In the very matter, the applicant had embraced the fact that lack of a legal counselor to represent him in the case was the main reason why he had pleaded guilty. In the case, the party disclosed why he had to pursue the act. He acknowledged pushing a motorbike rider for the sake of his pregnant wife.
The statements given by the applicant on the issues of the cases were clear indications that he had contravened Section 312 of the Migration Act. He was therefore liable for making false statements and failing to inform MARA about the case. Despite his knowledge of the provisions, the party went ahead and applied for registration and subsequent re-registrations between the years 2002 to 2006.
The applicant also contravened Section 312 of the act when he failed to notify MARA that he had been convicted for drinking. His arguments on this case were that the issues of the matter were not related to the institution or the conduct of a registration agent. He based his defense on matters that MARA would not consider for a crime of such nature. Mr. Volonski entirely relied on the manual of the organization to determine his innocence. For instance, he highlighted that the institution did not consider convictions that were spent in a cell or prison as crime. Despite the fact that convictions of such type did not interfere with his integrity as a migration agent, the bottom line of the situation is that the party did not notify MARA of any criminal convictions as required by Section 312 of the Migration Act in Australia (Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 2010).
In addition to the above cases, the applicant had failed to act in the interest of the clients who he was suppose to serve. The activity contravened Claus 2.1 of the act that, which provides that a registration agent must conduct his activities within the ambits of the law. The agent should exercise fairness and diligence when attending to the clients. When the issues of the case were raised in court, the applicant accepted the guilt by informing the court his secretary had made a mistake and therefore, it was not his intention to commit the crime.
Differences Between S. 499 Direction and a DIBP Policy Document
Section 499 directions are a policy that allows certain category of inhabitants In Australia to move freely within designated regions while performing their activities. The individual therefore, acts act as a legal non-citizen of Australia under the section. The section 13 Clause 2 of the Migration Acts does not require these categories of citizens to have a visa while performing their activities. The section also provides the provisions, which should be considered a minister in charge of migration when making or denying the declarations for migration. A good example the provisions of Section 499 is expressed on the migrations of immigrants who occupy the protected regions in Australia. For instance, the migration of the individuals occupies Papua New Guinea or the Torres Island is regulated by the provisions of the directions in Section 499. The section, further clarifies the migration rights of individuals who live in such areas. The section outlines the exercise and the removal of such rights as provided by the Migration Act.
Under the directions of Section 499, the immigrant may be denied their status of being legal non-citizens if they fail to act according to the expected standards, which govern their behavior as the citizens of Australia. The behaviors should be in tandem with requirements of the local community. The non-legal citizens are also expected to refrain from any criminal activity and promote respect of the culture of the people.
DIBP policy document is a paper given by the ministry of immigration, which outlines how various individuals in the country can apply for their visas. The document outlines refugees and other asylum seekers in the country can process their registration. The document also highlights the legal issues that are related to the matters of refugees and humanitarian assistance. As a document used in the immigration department, DIBP mainly focuses on the issues affecting refugees and how they can handle their problems. It provides refugee migration statistics and problems, which may call for ministerial interventions on the issues that affect refuges in Australia. The DIBP provides the guidelines, which are used the immigration department on how to handle the issues facing refuges. Factors as such as assimilation are clearly outlined among the problems that affect immigrants in the country.
While policy directions under Section 499 give the immigrants in sections the privilege to be recognized as citizens of Australia, The DIBP mainly deals with issues of refugees. The document also provides clear guidelines, which should be followed by the department of immigration when issuing visas to visitors in Australia.
The Doctrine of Precedent
The doctrine of precedent as applied in the legal context refers to a set of laws that are used or adopted by the legal system and provide guideline when making decisions on similar or related cases. A precedent may be a custom, which has been held by the judicial system as a common reference to other cases. Customs mainly originate from the traditions of a country. Precedents may also be binding especially where it is mandatory to be applied as in a given context. Moreover, precedents may also be persuasive especially in circumstances where is it is not mandatory. Persuasive precedents are the most common types of precedents that are applied in law. In their applications, the parties concerned must follow past rulings that were made by courts of bodies of judiciary found in the higher echelon. The law of precedents can be applied in migration legislations and cases laws where the court finds difficulties in making particular rulings on the matters of the case at hand. In such a situation, the court may be compelled to refer to the facts of the previous cases and compare the facts of the case at hand and previous one. The court then evaluates the facts of the cases and applies them according to the rulings made (Sinclair, 2007).
The same case will be applied in migration legislations where the parties concerned should act be guided by the previous cases on migration issues. For instance, if a migration officer has been charged for assault and the facts of the case are difficult to determine, the court may refer to a previous case with similar facts and make appropriate rulings. Hard copies and online reports of migration cases can be located in the websites of the Ministry of Migration. The copies can be extracted from law society website. Government gazettes on such laws can also provide hard copies of the reports.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (2010). Decision and Reasons for Decision  AATA 765. Compatility Paper No 765
Sinclair, M. (2007). Precedent, super-precedent. George Mason Law Review, 14(1), 362-363.