Abdul Amir (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream), brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The central dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria outlined in clause 600.211, which involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa, intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. Specifically, the Tribunal had to evaluate the applicant's intention to comply with conditions such as not working in Australia (8101), not studying for more than three months (8201), and not remaining in Australia after the end of their permitted stay (8531).

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant, aged 78 and lacking English language skills, had no prior travel history to Australia, they had previously complied with a visa for travel to Europe. The purpose of the proposed visit was to see young grandchildren, including a newborn, and the proposed length of stay was short. Considering these factors, along with the applicant's settled life, significant funds, and family, including a wife who could not travel, in a relatively safe region of Iraq, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant would not work or study in Australia and would comply with the visa conditions. The offer of a maximum security bond by the review applicant to ensure the visa applicant's return was also a significant factor.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211. The application for the Visitor (Class FA) visa was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfied this criterion.