Zaidan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal of a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The applicant, who had been in Australia since May 2016, sought an extension of his visa to remain until September 2017, which would have resulted in a continuous stay of over 12 months. The applicant's stated reasons for the extension were to spend more time with his daughter and grandchildren in Australia, following the death of his son in Lebanon, and to assist his daughter.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of a Visitor visa if granting it would authorise the applicant to remain in Australia for a total period of more than 12 consecutive months. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's personal circumstances, including the death of his son and his desire to support his daughter, constituted such exceptional circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the policy guidelines for Visitor visas, which indicate that exceptional circumstances may include the death or serious illness of a close family member in Australia requiring the applicant's presence for support, or a significant change in circumstances that could not have been anticipated and would cause significant hardship to an Australian resident if the visa were not granted. While acknowledging the applicant's grief over his son's death and his stated desire to help his daughter, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided any medical or psychological evidence to substantiate his health issues or depression. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the circumstances presented would cause significant hardship to an Australian resident.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, finding that the requirements of clause 600.215 were not met.