Ong Ik Weei (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, made by a visa applicant who was in Australia at the time of application. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal, presided over by Member Ian Garnham.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl.600.223 of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant, who did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, satisfied the conditions stipulated in subclause 600.223(2), which includes meeting Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's last substantive visa, an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) subclass 601, ceased to have effect on 16 February 2018. As the application for the subclass 600 visa was lodged on 4 April 2018, the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at that time. Consequently, subclause 600.223(2) applied. The Tribunal then examined Schedule 3 criterion 3001, which requires a valid visa application to be made within 28 days of the last day a substantive visa was held. The Tribunal found that the application was made more than 28 days after 16 February 2018, meaning the applicant failed to satisfy criterion 3001.

As a result of failing to meet Schedule 3 criterion 3001, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not meet cl.600.223 of the Regulations. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the visa applicant did not meet the criteria for a Visitor (Class FA) subclass 600 visa.