1606072 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) by a visa applicant from Burma. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as required by criterion cl.600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the requirements of cl.600.211, which involves assessing whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia and whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the visa. Specifically, the Tribunal considered the applicant's ties to Burma, including her business ownership, receipt of a pension, and family connections, as well as the prevailing country information regarding the security situation in Chin State. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not previously held an Australian visa, making the condition regarding compliance with previous visa conditions irrelevant.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the visa applicant, which included documentation of her business, retirement as a pastor, pension income, and financial surplus. The Tribunal found that the country information regarding Chin State did not indicate an increased risk of the applicant overstaying her visa, contrasting it with areas experiencing armed conflict. While acknowledging that the presence of family in Australia might offer some incentive to overstay, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the provided evidence demonstrated the applicant's genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of a family visit.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria of cl.600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.