Sadranu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457, by an applicant who did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. The applicant's last substantive visa, a Subclass 457, had ceased on 22 March 2015, and the current application was lodged on 24 April 2015. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the relevant Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criterion 3004, for the grant of the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of Schedule 3 criterion 3004. This criterion applies to applicants who ceased to hold a substantive visa on or after 1 September 1994 and requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant is not holding a substantive visa due to factors beyond their control, that there are compelling reasons for granting the visa, and that the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their previous visas. Additionally, the applicant must have been able to satisfy the visa criteria at the time they last held a substantive visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant failed to satisfy criterion 3004 because the application for the Subclass 457 visa was lodged after the applicant's previous substantive visa had ceased. This meant the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application and had not applied for the current visa before the cessation of their last substantive visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's failure to lodge the application prior to the expiry of their previous visa was due to factors within their control, such as the employer's error in not lodging the application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the applicable criteria for the grant of the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.