Assessment 3: Malaysian Citizen Case Study

Assignment Questions

Question 1 

Amira, a 22-year-old Malaysian citizen, holds a Subclass 500 Student visa to study a Bachelor of Business in Sydney. Her visa was granted in January 2024 and is valid until March 2027.

During her second year of study, Amira experienced significant financial difficulties. Her father, who was supporting her from Malaysia, lost his job, and she struggled to pay rent and tuition fees. As a result, she began working in a restaurant up to 50 hours per fortnight, exceeding the permitted work hours under her visa conditions. A workplace compliance inspection in September 2025 revealed the breach, and her employer submitted a report to the Department of Home Affairs.

At the same time, Amira’s academic performance declined. She failed two subjects, received formal warnings from her education provider, and fell below the required attendance threshold.

The Department of Home Affairs has issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for breaching visa conditions.

She is distressed and seeks urgent advice on her situation and next steps.

Question:
What legal and practical options are available to Amira in responding to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation, and what are the potential outcomes?

Question 2 

Mariana, a 42-year-old Brazilian national, has been living in Australia for three years on a Temporary Skill Shortage visa (subclass 482) as a marketing specialist. She has been with the same sponsoring employer since 2022.

Mariana plans to apply for permanent residency under the Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186). However, her employer has recently advised that the business is in financial difficulty and may not be able to proceed with the nomination. Her current visa will expire in six months. She is worried about finding a new sponsor and whether she needs to recommence a sponsorship in order to apply for permanent residency. She is worried about all the time she spent with the employer and thinks that she has wasted her time. She thinks that she may find another sponsor and she is already looking for new roles but she is keen to apply for a permanent visa and not another temporary visa.

Question:
What visa pathways and legal options are available to Mariana if her employer can no longer sponsor her, and what key factors should she consider in making a decision?

Question 3 

Amir, a 28-year-old citizen of Pakistan, is living in Australia on a Temporary Graduate visa (subclass 485), which is due to expire in three months. He has not been able to secure employer sponsorship or a skilled visa pathway and fears he will have to return home.

Amir’s close friends, Ethan (an Australian citizen) and Zara (an Australian permanent resident), discuss his situation. Zara offers to help Amir remain in Australia by agreeing to sponsor him for a Partner visa (subclass 820/801) even though they are not in a genuine relationship. Zara and Amir both understand that this is a way to “buy time” while Amir explores other options.

Together, they prepare the Partner visa application. To support the claim of a de facto relationship, they submit:

• a lease agreement with both their names,

• bank statements showing joint financial activity (created to look legitimate), and

• several statutory declarations from friends (including Ethan) saying they have known Amir and Zara as a couple for two years.

• Amir signs the application declaring the information is true and correct. Zara also signs the sponsorship form.

Several months later, during a verification interview, the Department of Home Affairs officer notes inconsistencies between their statements and supporting evidence. A Departmental investigation finds that Amir and Zara have never lived together and the relationship is not genuine. The Department then issues a Natural Justice letter indicating its preliminary view that bogus documents and false or misleading information have been provided in connection with the application.

Amir is now worried about the impact this will have not only on the Partner visa application but also on his ability to remain in Australia or apply for other visas in the future.

Question:
With reference to Public Interest Criteria 4020 under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), discuss the potential legal consequences for Amir if the Department determines that bogus documents or false and misleading information were provided in support of his Partner visa application. In your answer, explain how PIC 4020 may affect both his current and any future visa applications.

Brief Summary of the Assessment Requirements

The assessment required students to critically analyse three complex migration law case studies involving international individuals in Australia, each facing distinct legal and visa-related challenges. The assessment carried a total of 60 marks (20 marks per question) and a 1500-word limit. Students were expected to demonstrate a clear understanding of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), and relevant Public Interest Criteria (PIC) provisions, as well as the ability to apply these legal frameworks to realistic client scenarios.

Key pointers to be covered in the assessment included

1. Question 1 – Student Visa Breach (Amira):

   • Identify breaches of visa conditions under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

   • Explain legal and practical options available under a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC).

   • Evaluate potential outcomes, including visa cancellation, appeal rights, or ministerial intervention.

2. Question 2 – Employer Sponsorship and PR Pathways (Mariana):

   • Assess available visa pathways if an employer can no longer sponsor the applicant.

   • Explore eligibility for permanent residency (PR) under alternative schemes.

   • Advise on key decision-making factors, including timing, bridging visas, and compliance requirements.

3. Question 3 – False and Misleading Information (Amir):

   • Apply Public Interest Criteria 4020 (PIC 4020) regarding false or misleading information.

   • Discuss legal consequences of providing bogus documents.

   • Assess the impact of a PIC 4020 breach on current and future visa applications.

The assessment tested the student’s ability to interpret legislation, apply it to factual situations, provide structured legal advice, and identify ethical implications within immigration practice.

Step-by-Step Approach by the Academic Mentor

The academic mentor adopted a structured, guided approach to help the student understand and solve each question methodically. The guidance ensured that each response was legally accurate, logically presented, and aligned with assessment criteria for critical analysis, application of law, and clarity of reasoning.

Step 1: Understanding the Legal Framework and Context

The mentor began by helping the student interpret the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), focusing on the relevant sections applicable to each scenario.

• For Amira’s case, Section 116 (visa cancellation on grounds of condition breach) was highlighted.

• For Mariana, the Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) and sponsorship transfer options under subclass 482 were reviewed.

• For Amir, detailed attention was given to Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020 dealing with fraudulent documentation and misleading information.

This step ensured the student had a strong foundational understanding of the legal principles before attempting to apply them.

Step 2: Analysing Each Scenario Separately

The mentor then guided the student in analysing each scenario step-by-step, ensuring that all legal issues were clearly identified and addressed.

a. Question 1 – Amira’s Student Visa Breach

• The mentor guided the student to identify two main breaches: exceeding work-hour limits and failing academic/attendance conditions.

• Discussion focused on Section 116(1)(b) (non-compliance with visa condition) and procedural fairness under Section 119, requiring the Department to issue a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation.

• The student was advised to structure the answer around:

  • Identification of the breach

  • Explanation of NOICC process

  • Response strategies (submission with supporting documents, financial hardship evidence, intent to comply)

  • Possible outcomes (cancellation, warning, or continuation of visa).

• The mentor emphasized balancing legal advice with practical guidance, such as approaching the university’s international support office or seeking professional migration advice.

b. Question 2 – Mariana’s Sponsorship and PR Pathway

• The mentor guided the student to explore alternative visa options, including:

  • Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) – Direct Entry Stream if a new sponsor is found.

  • Skilled Independent visa (subclass 189) or Skilled Nominated visa (subclass 190) based on points test.

  • Temporary Skill Shortage visa (482) transfer to another employer.

• The student learned to evaluate eligibility requirements, such as occupation lists, English proficiency, and work experience.

• The mentor highlighted key decision factors, including maintaining lawful status, continuity of employment, and timing of applications.

• Ethical and emotional aspects were also discussed, such as managing uncertainty and career planning.

c. Question 3 – Amir’s False Information and PIC 4020

• The mentor explained Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020, focusing on:

  • Its application to bogus documents or false/misleading information.

  • The three-year exclusion period imposed for false information, potentially affecting all future visa applications.

• The student was guided to examine both the legal consequences (visa refusal, possible re-entry ban) and ethical implications (misrepresentation, breach of trust).

• The mentor also emphasized the Natural Justice process, where Amir has an opportunity to respond to allegations before a final decision is made.

• The student was encouraged to recommend honesty and full disclosure in all dealings with the Department as the most appropriate legal course of action.

Step 3: Structuring the Legal Response

Once each case was analysed, the mentor helped the student structure the answers logically, ensuring they followed a clear format:

1. Introduction: Brief summary of the situation and main issue.

2. Identification of Relevant Law: Citing applicable sections, regulations, and policies.

3. Application of Law to Facts: Linking legislation to specific case details.

4. Discussion of Options: Providing alternative legal and practical pathways.

5. Conclusion: Summarizing advice and likely outcomes.

The mentor emphasized using formal academic language, concise explanations, and accurate referencing of legal provisions. This approach ensured that the student’s responses were coherent, analytical, and aligned with marking rubrics.

Step 4: Draft Review and Feedback

The mentor reviewed the student’s draft answers and provided targeted feedback on:

• Clarity and precision of legal reasoning.

• Depth of analysis in connecting facts to legislation.

• Use of legal terminology and case law.

• Structure and flow of argumentation.
  The student revised the work based on feedback, improving legal accuracy and critical insight.

Step 5: Final Review and Outcome

In the final stage, the mentor helped the student refine the writing for tone, coherence, and compliance with the 1500-word limit. All three questions were integrated into a unified analytical report. The final submission demonstrated clear understanding of Australian migration law and the ability to apply theory to real-world scenarios.

Final Outcome and Learning Objectives Achieved

Through this structured and guided approach, the student achieved a well-reasoned, comprehensive solution for all three case studies.

Learning objectives covered included

1. Legal Interpretation: Understanding and applying sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

2. Analytical Thinking: Evaluating facts and identifying key legal issues.

3. Problem Solving: Proposing lawful, ethical, and practical solutions for visa-related challenges.

4. Communication Skills: Presenting legal advice in a clear, structured, and professional manner.

5. Ethical Awareness: Recognizing consequences of false or misleading information and maintaining integrity in visa applications.

Outcome

The student produced a well-structured, evidence-based assessment that met academic standards and demonstrated advanced understanding of migration law practice. The final submission reflected not only legal competence but also a strong grasp of procedural fairness, ethics, and client advisory responsibilities within Australia’s immigration system.

Get Inspired — But Don’t Copy!

Looking for guidance on your academic task? You can download the sample solution provided below to understand how to structure your answers, present ideas clearly, and meet your university’s academic standards. This sample is a great reference to help you craft your own assignment with confidence.

Plagiarism Warning:
Please remember, this solution is strictly for reference purposes only. Submitting it directly as your own work can lead to plagiarism penalties from your institution. Always use it as a learning guide to develop your unique, original content.

If you’re short on time or need expert support, our professional academic writers can craft a fresh, 100% plagiarism-free assignment tailored to your topic, academic level, and requirements. You’ll receive a well-researched, properly cited, and high-quality paper ready before your deadline.

Why Choose a Fresh Custom Solution?

• 100% original and plagiarism-free content

• Written by qualified academic experts

• Custom formatting and citation styles (APA, MLA, Harvard, etc.)

• Timely delivery with unlimited revisions

• Confidential and student-friendly service

Ready to Get Started?

Download Sample Solution       Order Fresh Assignment