CHU (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream), brought before the Tribunal by the applicant. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant had arrived in Australia on a temporary work visa and, while it was still in effect, applied for the Visitor visa with the stated intention of travelling around Australia. Crucially, the applicant also applied for a permanent visa on the same day.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under cl.600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involved considering the applicant's compliance with previous visa conditions, their intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. A significant factor in the Tribunal's consideration was the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing, despite being notified and invited to do so.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's simultaneous application for a permanent visa cast doubt on their genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily for the purpose of the Visitor visa. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to attend the hearing, without providing any explanation, prevented the Tribunal from obtaining crucial information about their current circumstances and intentions. In the absence of evidence demonstrating a genuine temporary stay, and given the conflicting visa applications and the non-attendance at the hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of cl.600.211 were not met. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Visitor visa.