Bisahu (Migration)

This case concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, made by Mr. Benjamin Gino Bisahu. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr. Bisahu met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Bisahu had substantially complied with the conditions of his previous visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters that indicated his genuine intention to stay temporarily. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider his stated reasons for seeking the visa, his personal circumstances including family ties in Mauritius and Australia, his employment and financial situation, his visa history, and his past criminal convictions.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's stated intention to remain in Australia permanently, despite applying for a temporary visitor visa. While acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had remained in Australia for an extended period after his basis for permanent stay (his relationship) had ceased and after international flights had become available. The applicant's explanations for his continued presence, including vague references to migration agent advice and a desire to study without taking concrete steps, were not found to be persuasive. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa granted, and therefore clause 600.211 was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Bisahu the Visitor (Class FA) visa.