ALMEIDA DE OLIVEIRA (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought the visa to spend more time with an individual in Australia whom she described as her nephew. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose.

The Tribunal considered three aspects of clause 600.211. Firstly, it examined whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa. The applicant's previous Visitor visa expired on 12 January 2018, and she did not depart Australia before this expiry, leading the Tribunal to find a failure to comply with visa conditions. Secondly, the Tribunal assessed whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, which included not working in Australia (condition 8101) and not engaging in study or training for more than three months (condition 8201). Allegations were put to the applicant that she had been working for the individual in question, contrary to her visa conditions. While the applicant did not formally deny working, her explanation regarding the relationship was unclear, and she did not respond to the Tribunal's request for further information. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant intended to comply with condition 8101.

Finally, the Tribunal considered any other relevant matters. The applicant had departed Australia on 3 June 2018 and had not returned. No information or evidence was provided to the Tribunal demonstrating a current intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose, and therefore, the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.