Asl Ghalichehbaf (Migration)

This case concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor), by a 68-year-old woman from Iran. The applicant sought to visit her son, who is an Australian citizen. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The applicant had previously visited Australia in 2011 for approximately three months and departed before her visa expired, with no evidence of non-compliance. The Tribunal accepted that she did not intend to work or study in Australia, which would be conditions of the visa.

However, the Tribunal found that other relevant matters weighed against the applicant's claim of a genuine temporary stay. Notably, the applicant had lodged an application for a permanent Contributory Parent visa in October 2020. The Tribunal considered this application for permanent residency to be inconsistent with the stated purpose of a temporary visit. Furthermore, the significant cost associated with the parent visa application suggested a desire for ongoing access to Australia rather than a short-term visit.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.