1514204 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa by a 30-year-old Vietnamese national. The applicant sought to visit his Australian-based wife for approximately two months, from November 2015 to January 2016. The review applicant, the applicant's wife, supported the application, stating she had been unable to visit him in Vietnam due to her studies and work commitments. The applicant stated he owned an aquaculture business in Vietnam and had savings of US$8000, intending to spend approximately $3000 on his trip. He also noted that he had previously applied for partner visas to reunite with his wife, which had been refused, and he was awaiting review of a further partner visa refusal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering whether the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The conditions of the Subclass 600 visa in this case included prohibitions on working or studying for more than three months in Australia, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia (other than a protection visa), and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It found that the visa applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 600.211. Despite the applicant's stated intention to visit his wife and family and his business and financial interests in Vietnam, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. This conclusion was influenced by the fact that the applicant had made multiple unsuccessful applications for partner visas, indicating a potential underlying intention to remain in Australia permanently rather than for a temporary visit. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision to refuse the visa.