ALVES DIAS (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The applicant, who had previously held a student visa, sought to remain in Australia as a visitor. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether they were a genuine temporary entrant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it could be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This required consideration of three elements: whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of their last substantive visa (a student visa); whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa; and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate substantial compliance with the conditions of their previous student visa, despite being requested to do so by the original decision-maker and the Tribunal. Furthermore, the applicant's financial documentation was incomplete and lacked a satisfactory explanation for the significant funds deposited within a short period while in Australia as a student. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not studying for more than three months, and not remaining in Australia after the end of their permitted stay.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, nor was it satisfied that the applicant was still in Australia at the time of the decision.