Balta-Erkoc (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Member Mary Urquhart, considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The applicant sought to visit family in Australia. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting family. This involved assessing two key aspects under clause 600.211: firstly, whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa; and secondly, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal also considered any other relevant matters.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal examined the applicant's immigration history, which included overstaying a previous Visitor visa in 2009, applying for a Carer visa, having that application refused, and subsequently departing Australia in January 2013 after a review by the Migration Review Tribunal. The Tribunal also considered the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject, including not working in Australia (condition 8101), not engaging in study for more than three months (condition 8201), not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia (condition 8503), and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay (condition 8531). While the Tribunal found no suggestion the applicant would breach condition 8201, it noted that the applicant, aged 70, claimed to still engage in farm work described as a "hobby farm" without independent corroboration. This, coupled with the applicant's previous immigration history, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant might be tempted to work in Australia in breach of condition 8101.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, finding that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.