Akhtar (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Sponsored Family stream), to a 57-year-old widow from Pakistan. The applicant sought to visit her son and grandchildren in Australia. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Wendy Banfield, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The Tribunal's assessment focused on three elements of clause 600.211: the applicant's compliance with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visa, her intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. While there was no evidence of non-compliance with previous visa conditions as the applicant had not previously travelled to Australia, the Tribunal considered her intention to comply with conditions such as not working, not studying for more than three months, and not remaining in Australia after her permitted stay. The Tribunal accepted she did not intend to breach the work or study conditions, but her intention to comply with the condition of departing Australia was central to the assessment of her genuine temporary entrant status.

In considering other relevant matters, the Tribunal noted the applicant's family ties in Australia, including her Australian citizen son, his wife, and five children, as well as another son with four children. The Tribunal found that the prospect of an improved standard of living and the presence of her sons and grandchildren in Australia could encourage her to remain in Australia beyond her permitted stay. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered country information indicating that the applicant's religious group in Pakistan faces legal discrimination and religious intolerance, which might provide a reason for her not wishing to return. The Tribunal also found the sponsor's vague response regarding his stepbrother's residency status concerning, given the applicant's desire to visit her other son and his family. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, finding that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.