1931418 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, made by a visa applicant who sought to visit her daughter in Australia. The review applicant, the daughter, had submitted information to the Tribunal, including photographs of the visa applicant at her business in Sierra Leone, a social media post wishing her mother a happy Mother's Day with an accompanying photograph, and details of individuals sponsored to visit Australia by her cousin and friend. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). This clause mandates that the Tribunal be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment requires consideration of whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visa, whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also considered clause 600.221, which pertains to the purpose of the visit.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the visa applicant had not previously held a substantive visa in Australia, there was no history of compliance or non-compliance to assess under clause 600.211(a). Regarding clause 600.211(b), the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, specifically not to work (condition 8101) or study for more than three months (condition 8201), given her accommodation and financial support arrangements in Australia and no indication of a need or desire to work or study. Under clause 600.211(c), the Tribunal considered other relevant matters, including the visa applicant's family and business ties in Sierra Leone, which were deemed significant incentives for her return. Crucially, despite a lack of documentary evidence of the mother-daughter relationship, the Tribunal found the information provided by the applicants regarding birth details to be consistent, noted the review applicant's consistent claims of the visa applicant being her mother over many years and in numerous visa applications, and acknowledged the review applicant's willingness to undergo DNA testing and the provision of a wedding photograph identifying the visa applicant as her mother. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicants were mother and daughter, and that the purpose of visiting her daughter met the requirements of clause 600.221(a).

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clauses 600.211, 600.212, and 600.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.