Toledana (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, made by the applicant, who did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. The applicant argued that the Department of Home Affairs delayed notifying her of the invalidity of her application, which had significant consequences for her employment and her ability to rectify her visa status. The applicant also raised concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on her ability to return to the Philippines.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically in relation to Schedule 3 criterion 3001, which pertains to applicants who do not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. The applicant admitted to lodging her visa application on 14 May 2021, with her last substantive visa having expired on 15 March 2021. The Tribunal was required to determine if the circumstances surrounding the notification of the invalid application and the applicant's subsequent actions constituted "compelling reasons" that would allow for an exception to the usual requirements.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's submissions regarding the Department's delayed notification of her invalid application, noting that she was informed on 31 March 2021, which was 15 days after her substantive visa had expired and 30 days after she lodged her application. The applicant contended that this delay prevented her from addressing her visa matter within the required timeframe and that she sought professional advice based on the understanding that her Bridging Visa A was valid until 5 May 2021. Despite these submissions, the Tribunal found that it had no discretion in the matter as the applicant clearly did not meet a mandatory requirement for the grant of the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Class FA Subclass 600 Visitor visa.