Storey (Migration)

[2021] AATA 185

Storey (Migration) [2021] AATA 185 (27 January 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr James Robert Storey

CASE NUMBER:  1920562

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/3036429

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:27 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 27 January 2021 at 11.57am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – if applicant in Australia at time of application, must also be at time of grant – applicant left Australia with no valid visa to return – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65(1)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 600.411

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 5 July 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant last arrived in Australia on 6 February 2019 and applied for the visa on 14 June 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa and the applicant applied for review.

3. Under s65(1) a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the prescribed criteria for the visa has been satisfied.

4. So far as is relevant to this matter, r.600.411 states that if the applicant is in Australia at the time of application, the applicant must be in Australia at the time of grant.

5. The Department's movement records indicate that the applicant is not in Australia. It appears he left on 4 November 2019. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant via the last notified email address advising that its record showed that the applicant had departed Australia and did not appear to hold a valid visa to return. The Tribunal did not receive a response.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied from the circumstances set out above that the applicant is not in Australia. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy r.600.411.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

   Angela Cranston
   Member