Komatireddy (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (tourist stream), by Mr. Komatireddy. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr. Komatireddy met the requirements of clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the timing of his application relative to the cancellation of his previous substantive visa. The decision was made by Scott Clarey, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Komatireddy satisfied clause 600.223, which requires, among other things, that if an applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, their last substantive visa was not of a specified type, and they satisfied Schedule 3 criteria. The critical Schedule 3 criterion in question was 3001, which mandates that the visa application must be lodged within 28 days of the "relevant day." The Tribunal had to determine the correct "relevant day" for Mr. Komatireddy and whether his application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr. Komatireddy applied for the subclass 600 visa on 20 August 2019, and at that time, he did not hold a substantive visa. His last substantive visa was a student visa cancelled on 1 May 2018. The Tribunal identified the "relevant day" for the purpose of Schedule 3 criterion 3001(2)(d)(ii) as 12 June 2019, which was the date Mr. Komatireddy was notified of the Tribunal's decision to set aside the cancellation of his student visa. Applying this, the Tribunal found that Mr. Komatireddy's application, lodged on 20 August 2019, was made more than 28 days after the relevant day. Consequently, he failed to satisfy criterion 3001 and therefore did not meet the requirements of clause 600.223.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Komatireddy a Visitor (Class FA) visa.