Bandesha (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (subclass 482) in the short-term stream. The applicant, a hairdresser, sought to have a decision to refuse her visa affirmed by the Tribunal. The central issue was whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for a temporary visa, having regard to her circumstances and immigration history.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as mandated by clause 482.222 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant's circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters indicated a genuine intention to remain in Australia only for the period permitted by the visa. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant intended to comply with the visa conditions.

The applicant had resided in Australia since 2008, undertaking extensive studies in various fields, including hairdressing, business, and marketing, and had subsequently worked in Australia on a 457 visa for four years. The Tribunal noted that if granted the 482 visa, the applicant would have been in Australia on temporary visas for approximately 13 years. Despite the applicant's statement that she had no intention of seeking further visas and had no intention of applying for any further visa in Australia, the delegate found it difficult to reconcile her lengthy onshore presence with her claims of being a genuine temporary resident. The applicant's answers regarding her future plans were considered vague, and she had not substantiated the benefits of remaining in Australia for a further two years.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the essential requirement of genuinely intending to stay in Australia temporarily. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.