Miao (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Visitor) tourist stream, made by an applicant who was in Australia. The applicant's last substantive visa, a student visa, had ceased on 15 March 2019, and the application for the visitor visa was lodged on 3 December 2020. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria for lodging a visa application while in Australia, specifically concerning the timeframe after the cessation of their last substantive visa. Clause 600.223(2)(b) requires an applicant who does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria, including criterion 3001, which generally mandates that an application be lodged within 28 days of the relevant day (the day the last substantive visa ceased).

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's last substantive visa ceased on 15 March 2019, and the application for the Visitor visa was lodged on 3 December 2020. This meant the application was lodged significantly outside the 28-day period stipulated by clause 600.223(2)(a)(ii) and Schedule 3 criterion 3001. While the applicant's representative explained that the delay was due to COVID-19 travel restrictions preventing departure and an intention to apply for a new student visa offshore, and that the applicant had been included as a dependant on her parents' business visa application which was later withdrawn, these circumstances did not alter the fact that the visitor visa application was not lodged within the prescribed timeframe. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Schedule 3 criterion 3001.

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