Costanzo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream). The applicant sought to visit her sister in Australia. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The specific conditions of the visa included not working, not engaging in study for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had no prior international travel history, rendering the assessment of past visa compliance inapplicable. It was satisfied that the applicant intended to comply with the conditions regarding study and training. The central consideration was the applicant's incentives to return to Ghana versus the incentives to remain in Australia. The applicant, a 48-year-old self-employed woman from Ghana with a stable business and family responsibilities, including a dependent husband and son, was seeking to visit her sister for six months. The Tribunal considered these factors, along with the sister's willingness to provide a security bond, as relevant to the applicant's intention to depart Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. The application for the Visitor (Class FA) visa was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211.