2210266 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The applicant sought to visit Australia for a family visit. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to consider three aspects of clause 600.211: whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa; whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa; and any other relevant matter. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not previously held Australian visas and had complied with visas held in other countries. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the applicant did not intend to work or study in Australia while holding the visitor visa.

However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant and the review applicant were religiously married in Lebanon but had not formally registered their marriage, with a formal wedding planned for the future. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant and review applicant were undecided as to whether they would reside together in Australia or another country, and that any decision regarding a future partner visa application would depend on various considerations, including employment prospects and family interests. Despite these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211.