Seemok (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a 63-year-old citizen of Thailand, a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa (Tourist stream). The applicant had applied for the visa after her previous visitor visas had expired. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.215 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether exceptional circumstances existed for the grant of the visa, as required by clause 600.215(1) of the Regulations. This clause is engaged when the grant of the visa would result in the applicant being authorised to stay in Australia for a total period of more than 12 consecutive months through various visa types, including visitor visas. The applicant's stated reasons for seeking the extended stay were to care for her grandchild while the parents worked, and the absence of family, accommodation, or employment in her home country, with an intention to apply for a sponsored parent visa.

The Tribunal was required to invite the applicant to provide information and appear at a hearing, as it was unable to make a favourable decision based on the material before it. The applicant failed to provide the requested information by the specified deadline, and consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the hearing and proceeded to make a decision on the review application without further steps. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied clause 600.215 of the Regulations, as the circumstances presented did not constitute exceptional circumstances beyond the applicant's control that would justify granting a visa that would result in a total stay exceeding 12 months.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa.