Rai (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had complied with a requirement to provide personal identifiers as part of her visa application. The applicant's son, acting as the review applicant, argued that his mother had not received the notification from the Department requesting these identifiers.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant had met the criteria for the grant of a visa, specifically whether she had complied with the requirement to provide personal identifiers as mandated by section 40 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) read with regulation 2.04 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This section stipulates that to be granted a visa, a person must have complied with a requirement to provide personal identifiers, or that requirement must have been withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant had been formally requested by the Department to provide personal identifiers, including fingerprint scans and a digital photograph, by attending a Visa Application Centre or Biometrics Collection Centre. Despite the review applicant's assertion that the notification email was not received by his mother, he conceded that the applicant had not provided the required personal identifiers and had not done so to date. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirement. Consequently, section 40 of the Act prevented the grant of the visa.

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