Vikram Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, made by Vikram Singh. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The court was required to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 600.223, which sets out the criteria for granting a Visitor visa to an applicant who is in Australia and does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant met subclause (2)(b) of clause 600.223, which mandates satisfaction of Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was in Australia when he applied for the visa on 23 December 2020 and did not hold a substantive visa at that time, being on a Bridging C visa. Consequently, the applicant was required to satisfy clause 600.223(2). While the applicant satisfied clause 600.223(2)(a) as his last substantive visa was not a Subclass 403 visa, he failed to satisfy clause 600.223(2)(b). This failure stemmed from his inability to meet Schedule 3 criterion 3001, which requires an application to be lodged within 28 days of the last day of holding a substantive visa. The applicant's last substantive visa expired on 13 January 2020, and his current application was lodged on 23 December 2020, well outside the 28-day timeframe. A statutory declaration provided by the applicant, outlining his visa application history, did not demonstrate satisfaction of this criterion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, on the basis that he failed to satisfy the necessary criteria.