1504541 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Enomoto, who sought a Visitor (Class FA) visa. The dispute centred on whether Mr Enomoto met the requirements of clause 600.215(b) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates the existence of exceptional circumstances for granting a visa where the applicant intends to stay in Australia for more than 12 consecutive months. Mr Enomoto had previously spent a year in Australia on a Working Holiday visa in 2007 and had arrived again on 10 May 2014 on a second Working Holiday visa, with his proposed stay exceeding 12 consecutive months.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether "exceptional circumstances" existed in Mr Enomoto's situation to justify the grant of the visa. The Tribunal considered departmental policy guidance, the ordinary meaning of "exceptional" as unusual or extraordinary, and judicial interpretations of the term. These interpretations indicated that exceptional circumstances could arise from factors that set an individual apart from others in a comparable situation and that the consideration was not limited to the applicant's personal circumstances but could extend to impacts on other parties, such as a nominating business.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr Enomoto's wife held a working visa and was employed as a seasonal worker and in administrative duties in Western Australia, and they were married, these circumstances did not rise to the level of "exceptional" as required by the regulation. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's proposed stay would exceed 12 consecutive months, but concluded that the evidence presented did not demonstrate circumstances that were unusual or out of the ordinary to the extent required. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.215(b) were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Enomoto a Visitor (Class FA) visa.