Akindoyeni (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, Tourist stream, made by the mother of the review applicant. The core dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Rachel Da Costa, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the visa's purpose. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa (specifically, not working or studying for more than three months), and considering any other relevant matters.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the visa applicant's circumstances in Nigeria, including her ownership of property and a car, her savings, and her lack of debt. It also examined the proposed financial arrangements for her visit to Australia, noting that her daughter, the review applicant, and her siblings would cover her expenses, while the visa applicant would pay for her airfares. The Tribunal found that the visa applicant's positive migration history and family commitments in her home country, including her role as carer for her late husband and her ownership of significant assets, supported the conclusion that she genuinely intended to stay temporarily.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and therefore met the requirements of clause 600.211. The application for the Visitor (Class FA) visa was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met this criterion.