Sharma (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a subclass 600 Visitor visa by the review applicant. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting the visa, given that the applicant had been authorised to remain in Australia on a combination of visitor and bridging visas for more than 12 consecutive months. The applicant's history of visa grants and periods of stay in Australia, commencing in September 2016 and extending beyond 47 months, was not in dispute.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the circumstances presented by the review applicant constituted "exceptional circumstances" as contemplated by subclause 600.215(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This subclause permits the grant of a visa even if the applicant would be authorised to stay in Australia for more than 12 consecutive months on specific visa types, including visitor and bridging visas. The applicant's claimed exceptional circumstances centred on the passing of her son, who had been residing in Australia with his family.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged sympathy for the review applicant's situation but found that the circumstances presented did not justify the grant of a further subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been in Australia on temporary visas for nearly four years and that over two years had passed since her son's death. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimed exceptional circumstances met the threshold required by the regulations. The Tribunal also considered a request for a recommendation for ministerial intervention under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958, but concluded that insufficient independent information regarding the welfare of the applicant's daughter-in-law and grandchildren had been provided to warrant such a recommendation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It also noted that the review applicant remained at liberty to apply independently to the Minister for intervention, provided she presented appropriate, current, and relevant information.