Banovic (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa made by a visa applicant who was outside Australia at the time of application. The review applicant, the visa applicant's husband, appeared before the Tribunal to present arguments. The core dispute concerned whether the visa applicant met the criteria outlined in clauses 155.212(2) and 155.212(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant had been lawfully present in Australia for at least two years in the five years preceding her application, and if not, whether she possessed substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties with Australia that were of benefit to Australia, as required by subclause 155.212(3). The applicant also sought to rely on subclause 155.212(3A), but as she was outside Australia at the time of application, this subclause was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant had only spent seven days in Australia in the five years prior to her application, thus failing to meet the two-year lawful presence requirement under subclause 155.212(2). Regarding substantial ties, while the Tribunal accepted the applicant's stated intention to complete legal studies and her belief that her acquired skills would benefit Australia, it was not satisfied that her limited employment experience, comprising approximately 14 months with one company and three months with another, constituted substantial business or employment ties with Australia that were of benefit to the country. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's current pursuits in windsurfing and paddleboarding, while potentially personal interests, were not demonstrated to be of benefit to Australia in the context of the visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa applicant a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa, as she did not meet the prescribed criteria for its grant.