1513732 (Migration)

The applicant, a British citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse him a Subclass 600 visitor visa. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This assessment involved considering whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of his last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's stated intention to remain in Australia temporarily for genuine tourist activities was credible, given his immigration history and stated purpose for seeking the visa. The applicant indicated he was not a tourist but had been living and working in Australia for many years, seeking to extend a previous visa granted under ministerial intervention to allow him time to apply for a Subclass 190 visa. This Subclass 190 visa, if granted, would permit him to remain in Australia to pursue a relationship with his son. The Tribunal also considered the standard conditions applicable to a Subclass 600 visa, including restrictions on work and study, and the possibility of conditions preventing the grant of further substantive visas while in Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Subclass 600 visitor visa program is intended for genuine tourists and does not support individuals remaining onshore to gather documents or await assessments for other visa applications. The applicant's admission that he was not a tourist and his stated intention to remain in Australia to pursue a Subclass 190 visa application, rather than for genuine tourism, weighed against the grant of the visitor visa. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the previous Subclass 600 visa granted under ministerial intervention explicitly stated that the applicant would need to satisfy all relevant criteria for any subsequent visa application. The Tribunal considered the applicant's request for referral to the Minister under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 but decided not to refer the matter, finding that it did not meet the criteria for ministerial intervention based on the relevant guidelines.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 600 visitor visa. The applicant was advised that he could still make a direct request to the Minister.