Al Kasab (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) in the Tourist stream. The applicant, the mother of the review applicant, sought to visit her son and his family in Australia and to tour parts of South Australia. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as required by clause 600.211 of the relevant regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involved assessing whether she had substantially complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, and whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. The conditions of the visa included not working in Australia, not engaging in study for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa (other than a protection visa) while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of her permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had no prior travel history to Australia, meaning there was no evidence of compliance or non-compliance with Australian visa conditions. However, the Tribunal considered evidence of the applicant's extensive travel history outside of Syria, including periods of residence in Germany and multiple visits to European countries. The Tribunal also took into account the applicant's stated purpose of visiting her son and his family, which aligned with the permissible purposes for a Tourist stream visa. The Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.