Wangdi (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) made by Mr Wangdi. Mr Wangdi applied for the visa after his last substantive visa had ceased. The primary dispute concerned whether Mr Wangdi met the criteria for a visa grant under Schedule 3 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically criterion 3004, which requires the applicant to have ceased to hold a substantive visa due to factors beyond their control.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Wangdi satisfied criterion 3004 of Schedule 3, which is a prerequisite for granting a Visitor (Subclass 600) visa when the applicant does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. This criterion necessitates that the applicant's failure to hold a substantive visa was due to circumstances beyond their control, that there are compelling reasons for granting the visa, and that the applicant substantially complied with previous visa conditions.

The Tribunal found that while the delay in lodging the visa application was due to a genuine mistake by Mr Wangdi's daughter, who assisted him, this mistake did not constitute a factor beyond his control. The Tribunal reasoned that remembering the expiry date of a visa and prioritising the lodgement of a new application were matters within the applicant's and his assistant's control. Consequently, Mr Wangdi failed to meet the requirement that he ceased to hold a substantive visa due to factors beyond his control.

As Mr Wangdi did not meet criterion 3004, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.