Hancock (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision regarding a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa. The applicant, a national of the United Kingdom, sought to remain in Australia for a period exceeding 12 consecutive months. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires "exceptional circumstances" for such extended stays. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant's circumstances constituted "exceptional circumstances" as required by clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that exceptional circumstances must be present for a visa grant that would result in the applicant being authorised to remain in Australia for a total period of more than 12 consecutive months, considering any previously held specified visas. The Tribunal was required to interpret the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" in this context.

The Tribunal reasoned that the term "exceptional" should be given its ordinary English meaning, signifying something unusual or extraordinary. It noted that while there was no specific case law on clause 600.215, the Full Federal Court in *An v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2007] FCAFC 97 had interpreted "exceptional circumstances" in a similar visa context as meaning unusual or atypical. The applicant's stated reason for the extended stay, relating to fraudulent activity on her credit card and the subsequent delay in receiving replacement cards, was not considered by the Tribunal to be sufficiently unusual or extraordinary to meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal found that the applicant had held specified visas, including a Tourist visa and a bridging visa A, which would result in a total stay exceeding 12 consecutive months if the current application were granted.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of clause 600.215. The decision under review was affirmed.