Mohinder Kaur (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2083

Mohinder Kaur (Migration) [2022] AATA 2083 (20 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs Mohinder Kaur Mohinder Kaur

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Yashpal Erda (MARN: 0963835)

CASE NUMBER:  2104768

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/199771

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:20 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Statement made on 20 June 2022 at 6:05pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – tourist stream – application made after last substantive visa ceased – factors beyond applicant’s control – department’s processing of parent and bridging visa applications – COVID-19 restrictions at the time no longer in place – no appearance at hearing – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 600.223, Schedule 3, criterion 3004

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 March 2021 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 2 February 2021. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different streams. In this case the applicant applied for the visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Tourist stream.

3. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. Relevantly to this matter cl 600.223 requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that if the applicant was in Australia at the time of application and did not hold a substantive visa, the last substantive visa the applicant held was not a Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) visa in the Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream and the applicant satisfies Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004 and 3005: cl 600.223(2).

6. In the present case, the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application and did not previously hold a Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) visa in the Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream. The issue in this case is whether the applicant satisfies Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004 and 3005. These criteria are set out in the attachment to this decision.

   Does the applicant satisfy the relevant Schedule 3 criteria?

   Criterion 3001

7. In order to satisfy criterion 3001, the application for the visa must have been lodged within 28 days of the relevant day. The ‘relevant day’ is defined in 3001(2), as set out in the attachment to this decision.

8. The applicant last held a Visitor (Tourist) (subclass 600) visa which ceased on 14 January 2021. The applicant lodged the application for a Visitor (Tourist) (subclass 600) visa which is the subject of this review on 2 February 2021.

9. As the visa application was made within 28 days of the relevant day, the applicant satisfies criterion 3001.

   Criterion 3003

10. Criterion 3003 only applies to an applicant who has not, on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa and, on 31 August 1994, was either an illegal entrant or the holder of an entry permit that was not valid beyond that date. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was not such a person, and accordingly criterion 3003 does not apply.

    Criterion 3004

11. Criterion 3004 applies to an applicant who ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994, or who entered Australia unlawfully on or after that date and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa.

12. It requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond his or her control, that there are compelling reasons for granting the visa and that the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions applicable to the last of any entry permits, substantive visas and any subsequent bridging visa held by the applicant.

13. In addition, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant would have been entitled to be granted the visa if the applicant had applied for it on the day he or she last held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or would have satisfied the criteria when he or she last entered Australia unlawfully; that the applicant intends to comply with any conditions of the visa; and if the last visa (if any) held by the applicant was a transitional (temporary) visa, that visa was not subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.

14. The applicant’s last substantive visa ceased on 14 January 2021 and she applied for the FA600 Visitor- Tourist Stream visa which is the subject of this review on 2 February 2021. The Department found the COVID-19 pandemic was a compelling reason for further stay in Australia but was not satisfied there were factors beyond the applicant’s control which prevented them from lodging the Visitor (Tourist) (subclass 600) visa application while holding a substantive visa.

15. The applicant chose not to attend a hearing. The representative submitted an email dated 5 May 2022 and claimed there was jurisdictional error by the Department that led to the applicant lodging her Subclass 600 visa application within 28 days. The email stated:

    The background of the case is such that the applicant applied for an onshore parent visa which was allowed within that time frame due to covid restrictions to be lodged onshore and where the applicant was entitled to receive an onshore bridging visa A.

    The case officer from Immigration made a jurisdictional error in this matter and decided not to provide the applicant with an onshore bridging visa and therefore the applicant crossed her onshore visitor visa date.

    In order to keep her stay lawful in Australia, we further lodged an onshore 600 which was subsequently refused and appealed further with the AAT.

    But in the meantime, we managed to clear the error made by the Immigration case officer and further got a grant of a bridging visa A for the applicant.

    We attach all related further evidence of this for your reference and further process.

    Thus based on the evidence provided, we submit to the AAT that there was a jurisdictional error made by the case officer that led to the applicant lodging an onshore 600 visa if not she would not be under this position.

16. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s submissions and was unable to determine what jurisdictional error was allegedly made by the Department. It was claimed the applicant was not issued a Bridging visa A when she applied for a parent visa, however a Bridging visa is not a substantive visa. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant did not hold a substantive visa due to factors beyond her control.

17. The applicant did not address whether there were compelling reasons for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal notes Visitor visa application form states the applicant has applied for a Subclass 143 visa. The Department found there were compelling reasons for the grant of the visa due to travel restrictions at the time. Those restrictions are no longer in place and the applicant would be able to travel to her home country at the present time.

18. Based on the above, the applicant does not satisfy criterion 3004.

19. For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy criterion 3004 for the purposes of cl 600.223.

20. It follows that as the applicant does not satisfy the applicable criteria for the grant of a Subclass 600 visa, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

    Wendy Banfield
    Member

    ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    Schedule 3

    3001

    (1)The application is validly made within 28 days after the relevant day (within the meaning of subclause (2)).

    (2)For the purposes of subclause (1) and of clause 3002, the relevant day, in relation to an applicant, is:

    (a)if the applicant held an entry permit that was valid up to and including 31 August 1994 but has not subsequently been the holder of a substantive visa — 1 September 1994; or

    (b)if the applicant became an illegal entrant before 1 September 1994 (whether or not clause 6002 in Schedule 6 of the Migration (1993) Regulations applied or section 195 of the Act applies) and has not, at any time on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa — the day when the applicant last became an illegal entrant; or

    (c)if the applicant:

    (i)       ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or

    (ii)      entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994;

    whichever is the later of:

    (iii)      the last day when the applicant held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or

    (iv)    the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; or

    (d)if the last substantive visa held by the applicant was cancelled, and the Tribunal has made a decision to set aside and substitute the cancellation decision or the Minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation — the later of:

    (i)       the day when that last substantive visa ceased to be in effect; and

    (ii)      the day when the applicant is taken, under sections 368C, 368D and 379C of the Act, to have been notified of the Tribunal's decision.

    3003

    If:

    (a)the applicant has not, on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa; and

    (b)on 31 August 1994, the applicant was either:

    (i)       an illegal entrant; or

    (ii)      the holder of an entry permit that was not valid beyond 31 August 1994;

    the Minister is satisfied that:

    (c)the applicant last became an illegal entrant, or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), last became a person in Australia without a substantive visa, because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and

    (d)there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and

    (e)the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions that apply or applied to:

    (i)       the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and

    (ii)      any subsequent bridging visa; and

    (f)the applicant would have been entitled to be granted an entry permit equivalent to a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the entry permit immediately before last becoming an illegal entrant or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), if the applicant had applied for the entry permit on 31 August 1994; and

    (g)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and

    (h)the last entry permit (if any) held by the applicant was not granted subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.

    3004

    If the applicant:

    (a)ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or

    (b)entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994 and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa;

    the Minister is satisfied that:

    (c)the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and

    (d)there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and

    (e)the applicant has complied substantially with:

    (i)       the conditions that apply or applied to:

    (A)the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and

    (B)any subsequent bridging visa; or

    (ii)      the conditions that apply or applied to:

    (A)the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because the visa ceased to be in effect); and

    (B)any subsequent bridging visa; and

    (f)either:

    (i)       in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (a) — the applicant would have been entitled to be granted a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the visa on the day when the applicant last held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or

    (ii)      in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (b) — the applicant would have satisfied the criteria (other than any Schedule 3 criteria) for the grant of a visa of the class applied for on the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; and

    (g)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and

    (h)if the last visa (if any) held by the applicant was a transitional (temporary) visa, that visa was not subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.

    3005     

    A visa or entry permit has not previously been granted to the applicant on the basis of the satisfaction of any of the criteria set out in:

    (a)this Schedule; or

    (b)Schedule 6 of the Migration (1993) Regulations; or

    (c)regulation 35AA or subregulation 42(1A) or (1C) of the Migration (1989) Regulations.