1831887 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Sponsored Family stream). The core dispute concerned whether the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting family, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicants' adult son, who resided in Australia and had obtained permanent residency through a protection visa, provided oral evidence on their behalf.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involves assessing their past compliance with visa conditions, their intention to comply with future visa conditions, and any other relevant matters. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicants 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 proposed Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa other than a protection visa, and not remaining in Australia after their permitted stay.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had previously visited Australia in 2015 and departed voluntarily, with no evidence suggesting a breach of their visa conditions. Given their retired status and advanced age, coupled with their previous compliance and departure, the Tribunal was satisfied that they did not intend to work or study in Australia. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had not sought to remain in Australia or apply for further visas after their previous visit. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants met the requirements of clause 600.211.

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