Atandi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, for a four-year-old Kenyan citizen. The review applicant, the child's mother and an Australian permanent resident, sought to bring her son and his grandmother to Australia for a one-month visit. The delegate had refused the visa, finding that the child's familial ties in Australia were stronger than those in Kenya, and therefore concluded that the child did not intend a genuine visit. The review applicant appealed this decision to the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue 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 Migration Regulations. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous visas, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal reasoned that the review applicant, as the child's mother and sponsor, had a strong incentive to ensure compliance with visa conditions, as any breach could jeopardise her own permanent residency status and future family travel to Australia. The Tribunal noted that the review applicant had a history of compliance with her own visa conditions, as did her brother and mother who had also recently been in Australia. Furthermore, the review applicant had provided evidence of the child's enrolment in a Kenyan school, indicating an intention to return. The Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose and that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met.

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