1833709 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, by a citizen of Columbia. The applicant sought to visit her son, an Australian citizen, and his wife in Australia for up to three months. The review applicant, the applicant's son, had resided in Australia since 2014, having initially arrived on a student visa and subsequently been granted a protection visa and Australian citizenship. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria under cl.600.211 of the Regulations, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The court was required to assess whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, considering her compliance with previous visa conditions, her intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The relevant conditions for the visa included not working in Australia, not engaging in study or training for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa (other than a protection visa) while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of her permitted stay. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's personal circumstances, including her caring responsibilities in her home country and her ability to finance the visit, as well as any incentives for her to return.

The Tribunal considered evidence that the applicant had not seen her son for seven years and had not met his wife. The applicant was not in paid employment, receiving a government pension and possessing savings, which indicated an ability to finance her visit. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's intention was to visit her son and his wife and that she did not intend to work or study in Australia beyond the permitted period. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously travelled to the USA for 12 days and complied with her visa conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had demonstrated strong incentives to return to her home country, including her role as guardian to her son's child from a previous relationship.

The Tribunal found that the requirements of cl.600.211 were met and remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant met the specified criteria.