Hernandez Calderon (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600. The applicant, who did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, contended that his circumstances, including mental health issues exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and a misunderstanding regarding his previous student visa, warranted a grant of the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied Schedule 3 criterion 3001 of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. This criterion is applicable because the applicant applied for the Visitor visa while not holding a substantive visa, and more than 28 days had passed since his last substantive visa, a TU500 Student visa, expired on 15 March 2020. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's situation met the additional criteria for persons in such circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant applied for the Visitor visa on 9 November 2020, which was significantly after the 28-day period following the expiry of his last substantive visa. Consequently, the applicant failed to meet Schedule 3 criterion 3001. As this criterion was a mandatory requirement for the grant of the visa in his circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the Class FA Subclass 600 Visitor visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Class FA Subclass 600 Visitor visa.