Aron (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, before the Tribunal. The applicant sought to visit family in Australia. The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The applicant's last substantive visa was a Tourist visa (TR-676), which had a "no further stay" condition imposed. While the Tribunal noted that Tourist visas typically include a "no work" condition, it lacked sufficient evidence to confirm if this was specifically applied to the applicant's visa.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicant's substantial period of unlawful residence in Australia, which exceeded almost 12 years. The applicant had overstayed her visa, which expired in 2005, and only returned to the Philippines in 2017. There was no evidence that she had applied for a bridging visa during this lengthy period of unlawful status. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had left her children in the Philippines to work in Australia, suggesting a potential intention to work rather than solely visit. Given these factors, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of her previous visa, nor that she intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, specifically the "no work" condition.

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