1602483 (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas made by a married couple from Pakistan. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicants 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. The applicants sought to visit their sons and their families in Australia, a purpose consistent with the Sponsored Family stream of the Subclass 600 visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involved assessing their substantial compliance with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, their intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The specific conditions of the Subclass 600 visa that were relevant included prohibitions on working, engaging in study for more than three months, remaining in Australia without a substantive visa (other than a protection visa), and remaining in Australia after the permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered documentary and oral evidence. It noted that one applicant had previously travelled to Australia on a visitor visa and departed within the validity period, with no evidence of non-compliance. The Tribunal also examined the applicants' ties to Pakistan, including property ownership, savings, and the father's pension and farm, as well as the fact that they had five children, four of whom resided in Australia. Despite previous refusals of visitor visas for the father, the Tribunal was satisfied, on balance, that the applicants would abide by the visa conditions and genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicants met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.