Dong (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Class FA (Subclass 600) Visitor (Tourist) visa. The applicant, who was in Australia at the time of application, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of her visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met Schedule 3 criterion 3005, which is a prerequisite for satisfying clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the grant of the visa.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant satisfied Schedule 3 criterion 3005, which requires that a visa or entry permit has not previously been granted to the applicant on the basis of satisfying criteria in Schedule 3, Schedule 6 of the Migration Regulations 1993, or specific regulations from the Migration Regulations 1989. The applicant's substantive Subclass 600 visa had lapsed on 16 June 2017, and she subsequently lodged her current application in person on 19 June 2017, at which time she was granted a Bridging (Class D) visa. As the Bridging visa is not a substantive visa, the applicant was required to satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria.

The Tribunal noted that on 6 January 2015, the applicant had lodged an earlier application for a Class FA (Subclass 600) Visitor (Tourist) visa. At that time, her substantive visa had lapsed two days prior, meaning she was an unlawful non-citizen. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that she had attempted to lodge her current application online on 16 June 2017, but a computer outage prevented this. However, because her substantive visa had lapsed before the lodgement of the current application, she was required to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria under clause 600.223(2)(b). The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the mandatory criterion 600.223.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the application for the Class FA (Subclass 600) Visitor (Tourist) visa.