CHIN (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream), made by an applicant whose previous student visa had been cancelled. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering whether the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa, whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the proposed visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa, which was a student visa. The applicant had requested the cancellation of their enrolment in a course of study less than two weeks after the student visa was granted, and their visa was subsequently cancelled for non-compliance. The applicant's explanation for this non-compliance was found to be unconvincing by the Tribunal, which placed significant weight on this failure to comply. Considering this and other aspects of the applicant's visa history, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, finding that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.