Chieobangyang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, where the review applicant sought to bring her brother and his wife to Australia for a holiday. The primary dispute revolved around whether the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Roslyn Smidt, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicants met the requirements of clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicants genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the granted visa's purpose. This involved considering whether the applicants had complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also had to assess the applicants' intention to comply with specific conditions, including not working in Australia (condition 8101), not engaging in study or training for more than three months (condition 8201), not remaining in Australia after their permitted stay (condition 8531), and not being entitled to a substantive visa other than a protection visa while remaining in Australia (condition 8503).

The Tribunal found the review applicant's evidence to be convincing, accepting that she would fund the trip and support her brother and his wife during their stay. Given the applicants' age and limited English language skills, the Tribunal was satisfied that they would not work or undertake study during their proposed brief visit, thus intending to comply with conditions 8101 and 8201. As the applicants had not previously travelled to Australia, compliance with previous visa conditions could not be assessed. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting relatives and that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicants meet the criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa, specifically clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.