1713858 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether the second applicant was a genuine temporary entrant for the purpose of a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600). The first applicant, an Australian citizen, sought the visa for his de facto partner, the second applicant, to assist him in caring for their child and his daughter from a previous marriage, particularly following a serious injury he sustained. The second applicant was also reportedly in advanced pregnancy at the time of the application.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the second applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily, as required by clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This involved assessing whether the applicant's stated intentions and circumstances demonstrated a genuine commitment to departing Australia at the conclusion of her visit, or if there were incentives to remain that outweighed her ties to her home country.

The Tribunal found that the second applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 600.211. This conclusion was influenced by the first applicant's statement that they planned to apply for a spouse visa from 2018 onwards, indicating a future intention to remain in Australia beyond the scope of a temporary visitor visa. The Tribunal considered this stated intention, coupled with the responsibilities the second applicant would assume in Australia, as evidence that her incentives to remain outweighed any genuine intention to stay only temporarily. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Visitor (Class FA) visa.