Saini (Migration)

The applicant, an Indian citizen, sought review of a decision not to grant her a Subclass 600 Visitor visa. The applicant had entered Australia on a previous visitor visa and, while in Australia, her substantive visa had ceased. She subsequently applied for a new visitor visa. The core of the dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a visa when she did not hold a substantive visa at the time of her application.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the applicant, not holding a substantive visa at the time of her application, met the requirements of Schedule 3 criteria 3001 and 3004. This involved considering whether her failure to hold a substantive visa was due to factors beyond her control, whether there were compelling reasons for granting the visa, and whether she had substantially complied with the conditions of her previous visas.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 600.223. It noted that the applicant had not held a substantive visa at the time of her application, and her previous substantive visa had expired. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the delegate's finding that she met criterion 3004, which requires the Minister to be satisfied of several matters including that the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond her control and that there are compelling reasons for granting the visa.

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