Takayama (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Visitor) in the tourist stream, made by Mr Takayama. The applicant was in Australia at the time of his application, which was lodged on 16 July 2020. At that time, Mr Takayama did not hold a substantive visa; his last substantive visa, a subclass 457 Temporary Work (Skilled) visa, had ceased on 12 June 2020. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether Mr Takayama met the requirements for the visa, specifically clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Takayama satisfied Schedule 3 criteria, particularly criterion 3001, which is a prerequisite for applicants in his circumstances. Clause 600.223(2)(b) requires an applicant who does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005. Criterion 3001, as defined, mandates that the application for the visa must be lodged within 28 days of the "relevant day," which in this case was the last day the applicant held a substantive visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's last substantive visa ceased on 12 June 2020, and his application for the subclass 600 visa was made on 16 July 2020. This meant the application was lodged 34 days after the cessation of his last substantive visa, exceeding the 28-day timeframe stipulated by criterion 3001. The Tribunal noted that it had no discretion to consider the applicant's explanations for the delay in lodging the application, as the regulations strictly require the application to be made within the specified period. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Takayama did not satisfy criterion 3001 and therefore did not meet the requirements of clause 600.223.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Takayama a Visitor (Class FA) visa.