1602015 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, brought by a visa applicant who is a national of Ethiopia. The review applicant, an Australian citizen and the visa applicant's daughter, sought to have the visa application reconsidered. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the genuine intention of the applicant to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting family. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The visa applicant had no prior travel history to Australia, thus there was no evidence of non-compliance with previous visa conditions. The Tribunal also considered the specific conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not engaging in study for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa (other than a protection visa) while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence suggesting the visa applicant intended to work or study in Australia, or that she would be entitled to a substantive visa while in the country. The Tribunal was satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the visa applicant would not remain in Australia beyond her permitted stay. The Tribunal also considered other relevant factors, including the visa applicant's age, marital status, family ties in Australia (three adult children and grandchildren), her desire to visit them and participate in cultural customs, and the temporary closure of her business in Ethiopia which provided an opportunity for travel. Financial evidence, including bank records showing significant savings and proof of property ownership in Ethiopia, supported her ability to support herself and her intention to return.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting her family and that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria under clause 600.211.