The Applicant requested ministerial intervention pursuant to section 351 of the Migration Act in relation to the decision of the MRT.

The Applicant arrived in Australia on a Close Family Visitor visa which expired a year later. The Applicant then commenced application for a substantive visa with the assistance of a migration agent, however the migration agent closed their practice and did not follow through with the application and failed to give notice to the Applicant. The Applicant then had no choice but to remain in Australia due to not having the finances to instruct another migration agent to continue the visa application and also not being able to afford to pay for a flight home. The Applicant had exhausted available funds in making payment for immigration matters.

The Applicant instructed Immigration Solutions Lawyers (ISL) to lodge a Protection Visa. ISL undertook the case pro bono. The visa was refused by the DIAC, so an application for review of the decision was lodged with the Refugee Review Tribunal but they affirmed the DIAC decision. The Applicant then instructed ISL to lodge a Preliminary Submission with the Minister’s office. The Minister refused to intervene in the Applicant’s case but a repeat request was submitted.

The Minister refused to intervene in the first instance due to the Applicant’s twenty year period of unlawfulness. However, ISL believed that the Minister had made the decision while unaware of mitigating factors and compassionate circumstances relating to Australian family members. The Applicant had submitted these circumstances to the Department in the submission but the Department subsequently failed to bring these to the Minister’s attention. This was evident in the Department’s comments in the statement for the decision, which suggested that certain information had not been provided when it was in fact included in the submission. ISL made a repeat request and asked that the Applicant be granted a Tourist visa in order for the Applicant to be eligible to make an onshore application for an Aged Dependent Relative (subclass 838) visa.

ISL further submitted that compassionate grounds existed for intervening. For example the Applicant’s elderly age and diagnosed depression; the Applicant would experience significant hardship if repatriated to the home country given they have no family remaining in the country nor any assets. The harm and hardship caused to the Applicant’s family unit in Australia was another mpassionate ground, especially in relation to the Applicant’s sibling who relies on the Applicant for support as well as the Applicant’s nieces and nephews whom the Applicant helped raise.

The Minister decided to intervene and substitute the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal with a more favourable decision. ISL was successful in securing the grant of a Special Eligibility (class CB) Former Resident (subclass 151) visa.