Munoa (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 at the time of application. The applicant's previous substantive visa, a subclass 457 visa, had expired on 7 January 2020, and the visitor visa application was lodged on 15 June 2020. The delegate had determined that the applicant did not satisfy Schedule 3 criteria because the application was not lodged within 28 days of the expiry of their last substantive visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant satisfied Schedule 3 criteria, given that they did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application and had lodged the application more than 28 days after their last substantive visa ceased. The Tribunal also considered whether there were compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not lodged the application within the prescribed 28-day period, as their substantive visa expired on 7 January 2020 and the application was lodged on 15 June 2020. While the applicant's representative argued that the delay was due to waiting for the finalisation of a student visa application and that the applicant's mother, a critical worker, would be adversely affected if the applicant were returned to their home country, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to waive the Schedule 3 requirements. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the relevant criteria.

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