Pasquetti (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the visa applicants against a delegate's decision to refuse their applications for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Tourist stream). The applicants were in Australia at the time of their application but did not hold a substantive visa. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicants satisfied Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criterion 3004, which requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant is without a substantive visa due to factors beyond their control and that there are compelling reasons for granting the visa. The decision was made by Member Rachel Da Costa of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the requirements of Schedule 3 criterion 3004, particularly subclauses (c) and (d). This involved assessing whether their failure to hold a substantive visa was due to factors beyond their control and whether there were compelling reasons to grant the visa. The applicants relied on advice from a migration agent, which they claimed led them to believe bridging visas would be granted, contributing to their lack of a substantive visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicants satisfied Schedule 3 criterion 3004(c) and 3004(d). The reasoning indicates that the Tribunal accepted that the circumstances leading to the applicants not holding a substantive visa were beyond their control, likely influenced by the incorrect advice received from their migration agent regarding bridging visas. The Tribunal also found compelling reasons for granting the visa. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration with a direction that the applicants met these specific Schedule 3 criteria.