1515543 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether a visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which a Visitor (Class FA) visa, specifically within the Sponsored Family stream, was sought. The applicant's stated purposes were to visit her sons and for sightseeing. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the visa's purpose.

To assess this, the Tribunal examined two key aspects: whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, and whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal noted a lack of evidence regarding any prior travel to Australia by the applicant. The conditions of the Subclass 600 visa relevant to this case included prohibitions on working in Australia (condition 8101), engaging in study or training for more than three months (condition 8201), and remaining in Australia after the permitted stay (condition 8531).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's financial arrangements and the support provided by her son, the review applicant. The review applicant, who works as a bartender and earns approximately $1,800 per week with savings of $60,000, stated he would financially support the visa applicant, covering her airfare and living expenses. He also stated she would live with him and his family in Australia. While the review applicant provided payslips, a tax assessment, and a bank statement, the Tribunal noted the visa applicant has no employment history or income of her own. Furthermore, the claim of inheriting a property was unsupported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence presented, it was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the granted purpose, and therefore, clause 600.211 was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.