Panayi (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Tourist stream, made by a national of the United Kingdom. The applicant sought to remain in Australia until 3 June 2019, which would result in a total consecutive stay exceeding 12 months. The applicant's stated reason for the extended stay was to assist her partner, who had significant medical issues and was receiving a pension from Centrelink.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires that "exceptional circumstances" exist for the grant of a visa if it would permit the applicant to remain in Australia for more than 12 consecutive months. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's circumstances, specifically her desire to support her partner through his medical treatment, constituted exceptional circumstances as contemplated by the regulations.

The Tribunal interpreted "exceptional circumstances" according to its ordinary English meaning, referring to dictionary definitions and relevant case law, such as *An v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2007] FCAFC 97, which described such circumstances as unusual or atypical. While acknowledging the applicant's stated intention to assist her partner and their cohabitation, the Tribunal concluded that these circumstances did not rise to the level of being unusual or extraordinary. The Tribunal found that the applicant's desire to support her partner, even with his medical condition, did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required by clause 600.215.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The applicant failed to satisfy the criteria under clause 600.215, and therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be upheld.