Campoy Sanchez (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision not to grant a Temporary Work (International Relations) (Class GD) Subclass 403 visa. The applicant sought to enter Australia to be employed in the Foreign Government Agency stream with the Consulate of Spain in Melbourne. The Tribunal had before it the Department's file, the applicant's application, various letters from the Consul General of Spain, a statutory declaration, written submissions, and a list of names of individuals who had allegedly obtained the same visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 403.232 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant sought to enter Australia to be employed as a representative of a foreign government agency that does not enjoy official status in Australia, and if she would not, as such a representative, enjoy official status in Australia. The applicant also contended that her duties, which included administrative support, advising on business establishment in Spain, providing forms, and training new staff, constituted representative duties.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had previously held the same visa and had been employed by the Spanish Consulate for 18 years, her described duties did not satisfy the requirements of clause 403.232. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not demonstrate that she sought to be employed as a representative of a foreign government agency that does not enjoy official status in Australia, nor that she would not enjoy official status in Australia in such a role. The Tribunal also noted that the list of names provided by the applicant was of little assistance, as the historical individual circumstances of those individuals were not relevant to the applicant's present case and the Tribunal lacked the authority to obtain their details.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet clause 403.232 and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 403 visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.