1603632 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa. The applicant sought the visa to visit his spouse and child in Australia, a purpose permissible under the Tourist stream of the Subclass 600 visa. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria outlined in clause 600.211, which involves assessing 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 specific conditions of the Subclass 600 visa in question included not working in Australia, not engaging in study for more than three months, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the applicant's immigration history, which indicated substantial compliance with previous visa conditions since 2007. However, the Tribunal also considered that the applicant had spent the majority of his time in Australia since his first arrival in 2007, having been granted three consecutive onshore visitor visas since February 2015. The applicant's stated purpose for the current application was to accompany his wife and care for their baby while awaiting the grant of his 309 visa. The Tribunal found that these circumstances, particularly the extended periods spent in Australia and the onshore grant of multiple visitor visas, did not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met and affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.