Codd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Subclass 461 (New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship (Temporary)) visa. The applicant, a New Zealand citizen's family member, had applied for the visa while in Australia. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 461.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine which of the three alternative subclauses under clause 461.212 the applicant might satisfy. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the applicant was a member of the family unit of an eligible person (subclause (2)), or if she met the conditions for being a former family member who had not become a member of another family unit while in Australia (subclause (3)), or if she met the criteria for applicants outside Australia (subclause (4)).

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not satisfy subclause (2) because she stated she was no longer in a relationship with Mr Keiran Francis Codd, the person with whom she claimed a family relationship for the visa application. Furthermore, the applicant could not satisfy subclause (4) as she was in Australia at the time of her application. While the applicant's circumstances, including her inability to travel overseas due to her bridging visa status and her desire to visit family, were noted with sympathy, the Tribunal concluded that these did not displace the clear wording of the relevant guidelines or the intention behind them.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 461 visa. The Tribunal did not refer the matter to the Minister for intervention but noted that the applicant could make her own request for intervention and expressed hope that any future partner visa application would be processed in a timely manner.