突然而来的疫情对留学移民行业造成了不小的打击，很多来澳洲留学的学生都由于边境关闭不能来澳洲继续学习，或者不得不选择网课。很多本来可以获得邀请申请技术移民的申请人，由于配额的调整，迟迟不能获得邀请。还有很多商业移民的申请人，由于境外签证停止审理，签证申请的审理时间被大大的延长了，打乱了来澳洲的计划。
但是有一类申请人确因为疫情因祸得福。这类人是本来在澳洲黑名多年，或者在过桥签证上多年的申请人，他们可以借助疫情提供的机遇，以疫情作为一个“不可抗力”的理由，在境内申请配偶签证。
A 女士，经历坎坷，已经在澳洲很多年都没有签证了，但是有一个澳洲人的配偶。A女士按照规定必须出境申请配偶签证，但是A女士接受不了申请签证必须要回国的要求，所以在澳洲迟迟没有离开。她借助疫情提供的这个不可抗力的理由，在疫情期间递交了配偶签证，随即获得了过桥签证，可以一天也不用和配偶分开了。
B先生，持有旅游签证来澳洲看女朋友。移民局在旅游签证上放了8503 no further stay （不能境内续签的）的条款。 本来准备回国以后再递交配偶签证， 但是疫情阻断了国际航线。借助疫情提供的这个不可抗力的理由，在疫情期间waive 了 签证8503条款，递交了配偶签证，获得了过桥签证，允许他在境内等待配偶签证的下签。
C先生，上一个签证拒签后一直在上诉，持有一个过桥签证在澳洲。在此期间认识了一个澳洲的配偶，本来准备回国后再办理境外的配偶签证。但是利用了疫情提供的不可抗力的理由，在澳洲境内递交了配偶签证，获得过桥签证，可以在境内等待签证下签。
像疫情这种契机，可遇难求。如果能充分利用疫情带来的有利条件，就可以办成平时不可能办成的签证。
有人可能会说 compelling reason 是移民局决定的。移民局可以主观判断。
但是根据 Lerenzo Paduano V Minister for immigration and Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Migration Review Tribunal http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2005/211.html
para 41 Judge Crennan held that : ” Any subjective judgment made by the Minister as to whether the reasons were compelling would still have to be reasonable in the administrative law sense.所以移民局还必须合理的给compelling 理由做出判断。
44 Whether the Tribunal treated itself as the person to be ‘compelled’ or the applicant as the person to be ‘compelled’ by such reasons, a conclusion by the Tribunal that it could not be satisfied the reasons which it had accepted ‘demand or rouse strong attention, interest or admiration or . . . tend to demand action’ does not seem reasonable in an administrative law sense. 如果以让达到让移民局做出行动的程度来判断compellig reason 是不对的。
法官接着在第46段说如果只考虑是否能让移民官行动，而不考虑能否说服移民官是不对的。
46 The second and alternative part of the Tribunal’s construction, namely that ‘compelling reasons for the absence’ must ‘tend to demand action’ is correct and apposite as far as it goes. However, the Tribunal had ascertained ‘compelling’ in its ordinary meaning means ‘tending to demand action or to convince’ (emphasis added), but in putting a gloss on the legislative requirement it shortened this ordinary meaning to ‘tending to demand action’. This seems to me to omit a significant aspect of the ordinary meaning of ‘compelling’ .
此外法官 Crenan 还认为正确的问题不是 compelling reason 可以达到一个让移民官做出不同决定的程度， 而是应该问:是不是compelling reason 足够 forceful.
53 As a result of an error in construing the legislative expression, the Tribunal asked itself a wrong question: ‘Were the reasons for the absence compelling in that they “demand or rouse strong attention, interest or admiration or . . . tend to demand action”?’ If the Tribunal wished to ask the question posed by the case by reference to the ordinary meaning of ‘compelling’, the correct question was: ‘Were the reasons for the absence compelling in that they were forceful?’ In answering that question, the Tribunal would commit a mistake of law if it put a gloss on ‘forceful’ so as to exclude reasons for the absence which are forceful in that they involve moral necessity, or are convincing by reason of some forcefulness.