Taylor (Migration)

The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, sought review of a decision to refuse his application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600). At the time of his application, the applicant held a Bridging E visa, his last substantive visa, a Working Holiday (Subclass 417) visa, having ceased on 5 December 2020. The Department had refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically Schedule 3 criterion 3001.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223, which mandates that if an applicant in Australia does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, they must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria, including criterion 3001. Criterion 3001 requires that an application be validly made within 28 days after the "relevant day," which, in the applicant's circumstances, was the day his last substantive visa ceased.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's Working Holiday visa ceased on 5 December 2020, and he applied for the Visitor visa on 30 March 2021. This meant the application was lodged more than 28 days after his last substantive visa ceased. The applicant's explanation for the delay, involving a withdrawn sponsorship nomination and dealings with an unregistered migration agent, did not alter the fact that the application was made outside the prescribed timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223.

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