Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Principles of Statutory Interpretation

Question: Discuss about the Principles of Statutory Interpretation. Answer: Introduction: In this case, the issue before the Federal Court of Australia was to review the decision delivered by the Migration Review Tribunal. It was the finding of the Tribunal that it did not have the jurisdiction as the review application has been filed late by the applicant. The court also had to decide if the Minister's department had properly notified the applicant regarding the delegate's decision. In this case, the applicant had provided an incomplete residential and postal address while making his visa application. However subsequently, the applicant provided a document to the department in which his complete address, residential as well as postal, was set out. However the department failed to use this address. Under these circumstances, the Court was of the view that the Migration Review Tribunal's decision should be quashed and the Tribunal should re-determine the application made by the applicant in accordance with law. In this case, Mr. Yelaswarapu made an application for a Student (Temporary) Visa online. While answering the questions mentioned in the online form, he provided a purported postal address which was also his purported residential address. In the decision made by the delegate of the minister, it was decided to refuse granting the visa to Mr. Yelaswarapu. The delegate was of the opinion that evidence was not present to support the fact that Mr. Yelaswarapu had maintained enrollment in an appropriate full-time course as required for the grant of visa and he also failed to fulfill condition 8516 and regulation 573.235, migration regulations, 1994. This decision of the delegate was sent to Mr. Yelaswarapu through registered post at the purported residential and postal address of the applicant in Westmead under cover of a letter on 7 December 2011. However the Department of Immigration and Citizenship got back the letter On 14 December 2011 with a note in which it was mentioned, RTS Insufficient Address. The delegate's decision was resent by the department through registered post on 22 December 2011 to another address on Everton Road, Strathfield. However the department got back the letter and a box was ticked according to which the item was not claimed. Under the circumstances, an e-mail was sent by the department to Mr. Yelaswarapu in which it was mentioned that the visa application of Mr. Yelaswarapu had been assessed and finalized by the Department. It was also mentioned in the e-mail that as a result of an administrative error, the decision letter was also forward it to the address on Everton Road and it asked for an update d postal address. In reply to this e-mail, the department got an e-mail from Mr. Yelaswarapu in which it was as bad the letter should be forwarded to the address on Baresford Road, Strathfield. As a result, the department sent a letter to this address and after some time it got an application to review the decision made by the delegate. Thereafter, the Tribunal wrote a letter to Mr. Yelaswarapu inviting him to comment on the validity of his application. It was indicated in this letter that the Tribunal held a preliminary view according to which the application has not been lodged by Mr. Yelaswarapu within the prescribed time limit, which was 21 days from which he can be considered to have been notified regarding the decision of the delegate. In return, a fax was received by the Tribunal in which a migration agent was appointed by Mr. Yelaswarapu and he also expressed surprise that when the department had received back the notification letter, why Mr. Yelaswarapu was not contacted th rough e-mail or on his telephone. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal reached at the decision that it did not have the jurisdiction. The fact was noted by the Tribunal that the applicant had to provide contact details to the Department so that the department could contact Mr.Yelaswarapu and give them the notice regarding decision and other matters regarding which the department is under an obligation to inform the applicant. The Tribunal also noted that the responsibility was imposed on the applicant to make sure that the information provided by him is correct and similarly, multiple contact details are given to the department, but the department is not under an obligation to send notifications through all the methods. While arriving at the decision regarding the fact that MRT had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, the Court was of the opinion that the visa application that had been made by Mr. Yelaswarapu online was not a valid application until an identifiable residential address was provided by him. He did so when he gave a copy of his health insurance policy to the Department. Further, the court stated that if the Department of the minister had decided to correspond with the applicant to an address that is insufficient for making a valid visa application, instead of the other address that was available with the department to be used for the purpose of correspondence, it can be said that the Department failed to comply with the notification requirements. The court also rejected the submission of the Minister that the first purported notification regarding the decision of the delegate was a valid notice for the purpose of section 66(1), Migration Act. As is the case with the Tribunal, the Minister's Department also had the requirement to make obvious inquiries regarding a critical threat that can be made easily. When the Department received back the first notification letter with comments that it was insufficiently addressed, the department tried to find an alternative address from the Education Department and later on, by contacting the applicant. However it could have been simpler for the department to simply look into its own files for the obviously missing unit number but it was not done. Therefore, the Court stated that an error had been made by the minister's delegate when the applicant was not notified regarding the decision on his complete residential address, that was available on the files of the department. What principles of statutory interpretation (if any) were utilized by the Federal Court in this case? Statutory interpretation can be described as the process that is used for interpreting and applying the various laws to decide the cases. Integration is required when subtle or ambiguous aspects of a particular statute are involved in the case. Generally the words used in the statute have a straightforward and a plain meaning but sometimes, it is possible to have some vagueness or ambiguity in the words used in the statute that has to be resolved by the court. Such vagueness or ambiguity in the legislation is the basic nature of language. Hence it is not always possible to transform the intention of the legislature exactly in the written words. Some of the significant rules of statutory interpretation are the:- Literal Rule: According to this rule, the statute has to be interpreted with the help of the ordinary meaning of the language used in the statute, unless some of the terms have been explicitly defined by the statute as otherwise. Mischief Rule: under this rule, efforts are mad e to decide the intention of the legislators. The role was created in the 16th century case in UK and the purpose of this rule is to decide the mischief and defect that the statute in question tries to remedy. The third primary rule of statutory interpretation is the golden rule. It can be described as a compromise between the literal rule (that is in favor of plain meaning) and the mischief rule. Therefore, like the literal rule, this rule also gives plain and ordinary meaning to the words of the statute. But if doing so may result in an irrational result that was not the intention of the legislature, the rule allows the judge to depart from such a meaning. In the present case, the court considered the words used in regulation 2.07, Migration Regulations and arrived at the conclusion that the application made by Mr. Yelaswarapu was not a valid application as there was no complete residential address on which he may be contacted. Bibliography Einer Elhauge (2008) Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation. Harvard University Press, p. 148 Garner, Bryan A.. Ed. (1999) Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. p.602 Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garne (2012) Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts Singh v Minister for Immigration [2011] FCAFC 27 Smith vs. Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859 Xie v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCAFC 172 Zhang v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCAFC 151exts

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.