Chow (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The applicant, Mr Chow, was outside Australia when he made his application. The primary issue was whether Mr Chow had established substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties of benefit to Australia, as required by the Migration Regulations.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to adequately consider the evidence of Mr Chow's ties to Australia, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on international travel. Specifically, the court considered whether the Tribunal had given sufficient weight to Mr Chow's stated intentions regarding future house purchase, his children's education, and business investment in Australia, and whether these constituted "substantial ties of benefit to Australia" for the purposes of the visa criteria.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law. It reasoned that while Mr Chow had demonstrated some ties to Australia, such as his permanent residency status and his stated intentions for the future, these were not sufficient to meet the threshold of "substantial ties of benefit to Australia" as contemplated by the regulations. The court noted that Mr Chow had been working in his home country for a significant period, with only short visits to Australia since his permanent visa was granted. Furthermore, the court found that there were no compelling or compassionate reasons for his last departure from Australia. The Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of the visa was therefore upheld.