Ramm (Migration)

The case of Ramm (Migration) involves a United Kingdom national who applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa under the Tourist stream, after her previous Visitor visa expired. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the application on the basis that the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application and did not meet the Schedule 3 criteria. The applicant sought a review of this decision by the Tribunal. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal found that the applicant was in Australia at the time of application and did not hold a substantive visa, but that she satisfied the Schedule 3 criteria. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration, finding that the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.223.

The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of cl 600.223 of the Regulations, which set out the criteria for a Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal noted that since the applicant was in Australia at the time of application and did not hold a substantive visa, cl 600.223(1) was not applicable. The Tribunal also found that the last substantive visa held by the applicant was not a Subclass 403 visa in the Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream, so cl 600.223(2)(a) did not apply. Consequently, the issue was whether the applicant satisfied cl 600.223(2)(b), which requires the applicant to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant satisfied these criteria, thus meeting the requirements of cl 600.223.

The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the applicant meets the criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa. The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including the deaths in her family, the breakup of her relationship, her COVID-19 infection, and her severe physical health conditions and reduced mental functioning, which she argued justified the grant of the visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had made a second valid application promptly after her first was declared invalid due to a non-payment of an additional fee. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's improving health and plans for travel, socialising, and departure.