Driubalavu (Migration)

The applicant, born in Australia but not an Australian citizen, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Tourist stream. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant failed to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4021, which requires the applicant to hold a valid passport or for it to be unreasonable to require them to do so. The applicant sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied PIC 4021 for the purpose of clause 600.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion has two limbs: either the applicant holds a valid passport that meets specific requirements, or it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to hold a passport. The Tribunal was required to determine which limb, if any, the applicant satisfied.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided any evidence that they held a passport, despite repeated requests from both the original delegate and the Tribunal itself. Furthermore, the applicant offered no argument or evidence to suggest that it would be unreasonable to require them to hold a passport. In the absence of such evidence or argument, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this limb of the criterion was met. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4021.

As the applicant failed to satisfy PIC 4021, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, Tourist stream.