1820511 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, specifically within the Sponsored Family stream, brought before the Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations. The visa applicant sought to visit the review applicant, who was an Australian permanent resident.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria of clause 600.211, which involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, and whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. The relevant conditions for the Subclass 600 visa included not working in Australia, not engaging in study or training for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia (other than a protection visa), and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant matters.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the review applicant expressed a desire to remain in Australia permanently with her son and new baby, and to have her son attend school in Australia. While the review applicant initially stated she only wanted her husband (the visa applicant) and daughter to visit temporarily, she later admitted a strong desire for her daughter to stay permanently in Australia. This, coupled with the visa applicant's stated reasons for returning to Indonesia, led the Tribunal to conclude that it was not satisfied the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.