2309810 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a Visitor (class FA) Visitor (Sponsored Family) (subclass 600) visa. The visa applicant sought to visit family members in Australia. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, having regard to whether she had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous visas, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The potential conditions for the visa included not engaging in work, not engaging in studies or training for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted period of stay.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211. This conclusion was based on the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence, including the visa applicant's oral evidence. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicant had not detailed all her siblings in the visa application form, and that some siblings had travelled to Australia and remained in breach of their visa conditions. The Tribunal also formed the view that the applicant had a flexible approach to the truth. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the visa.