Date
Geographical Area
Pacific
Countries
Australia
Keywords
Case Name
Loaiza Esguerra (Migration)
Case Reference
[2020] AATA 3593
Name of Court
Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
Key Facts
On 6 February 2020 Esguerra applied for a Subclass 600 Visitor (tourist stream) visa. As Esguerra had previously held a Visitor visa and was now on a Bridging visa, in order for this visa to be granted, the Minister of Immigration, or their delegate, had to be satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances for the grant of the visa. On 15 February 2020, the application was declined. This case involved the application for the review of this decision.
Decision and Reasoning
The Tribunal held that although helping her daughter with her kids did not amount to exceptional circumstances, the concerns surrounding Esguerra’s return to Colombia during the Covid-19 pandemic did. Despite not being in the highest age risk category, the Tribunal stated that they had genuine concerns that Esguerra would be vulnerable in a country where medical resources were scarce, there were significant increases in cases and continued community lockdowns (lockdown had been extended six times at that point). The Tribunal also noted the collapse of the Colombia’s healthcare system and the “well-known cartel problem”, who, during the pandemic, had imposed their own lockdowns across Colombia, killing those who did not obey. For these reasons, the Tribunal held that there were exceptional circumstances.
The also held that Esguerra’s presence in Australia for a longer period was not inconsistent with the exceptional circumstances, but noted that the Visitor visa was not a long-term solution if permanent migration was her intention.
The also held that Esguerra’s presence in Australia for a longer period was not inconsistent with the exceptional circumstances, but noted that the Visitor visa was not a long-term solution if permanent migration was her intention.
Outcome
The Tribunal held that Esguerra met the criteria for a Subclass 600 Visitor visa.
Link
Disclaimer
This case law summary was developed as part of the Disaster Law Database (DISLAW) project, and is not an official record of the case.
Document
Document