Mohinder Kaur (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Visitor) in the tourist stream, made by Mohinder Kaur. The applicant had applied for the visa after her last substantive visa had ceased. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005, as required by subclause 600.223(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005. Criterion 3001 required the application to be lodged within 28 days of the relevant day, which was satisfied as the application was lodged on 2 February 2021, within 28 days of the applicant's last Visitor (Tourist) visa ceasing on 14 January 2021. Criterion 3003 was found not to apply to the applicant. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied criterion 3004, which involves factors beyond the applicant's control, compelling reasons for granting the visa, substantial compliance with visa conditions, and entitlement to the visa had the application been made earlier. Criterion 3005, concerning whether a visa had previously been granted based on these criteria, was also relevant.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to satisfy criterion 3004. While the applicant lodged her application within the 28-day timeframe for criterion 3001, and criterion 3003 did not apply, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that she was not the holder of a substantive visa due to factors beyond her control, nor had she established compelling reasons for granting the visa. The Tribunal noted that COVID-19 restrictions, which might have been considered factors beyond her control, were no longer in place. Furthermore, the applicant did not appear at the hearing, and the Tribunal was not satisfied that she met the remaining requirements of criterion 3004 or criterion 3005.

Consequently, as the applicant did not satisfy the applicable Schedule 3 criteria for the grant of a Subclass 600 visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.