2117292 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of [Country 1] in Australia, a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in May 2019 on a visitor visa that expired in May 2020. She subsequently applied for a visitor visa on 21 October 2021, after an earlier application was deemed invalid. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by clause 600.223 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa, specifically clause 600.223, which requires applicants in Australia without a substantive visa to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria, including PIC 3001. PIC 3001 requires an application to be made within 28 days of the "relevant day," which is generally the day after the applicant's last substantive visa ceased or the day they last entered Australia unlawfully.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the applicant's last substantive visa expired in May 2020 and she applied for the current visa on 21 October 2021, she had not satisfied PIC 3001. This failure to meet PIC 3001 meant she could not satisfy clause 600.223 of the Regulations. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's daughter attended the hearing and that the applicant had been invited to comment on information that would be a reason for affirming the decision. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and her need to support an injured family member, did not provide a basis to depart from the clear requirements of the Regulations.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa.