Huynh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, made by Ms. Huynh. The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse her visa application. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically in relation to the timing of her application after her last substantive visa ceased.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria for the subclass 600 visa, particularly clause 600.223, which outlines conditions for applicants in Australia. A key issue was whether the applicant met Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criterion 3001, which mandates that an application for a visa must be lodged within 28 days of the applicant's last substantive visa ceasing. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's explanation for the delay in lodging her application.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of her application, she was required to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria, including criterion 3001. The evidence indicated that the applicant's last substantive visa ceased on 1 June 2020, and her application for the Visitor visa was lodged on 21 July 2020. This meant the application was lodged more than 28 days after her last substantive visa ceased, failing to meet the requirement of criterion 3001. Despite the applicant's submissions regarding her desire to see family and the impact of the pandemic, the Tribunal found no evidence to refute the department's contention that the 28-day requirement was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the Visitor (Class FA) visa to the applicant.