Dai (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, by a visa applicant who sought entry to Australia for a family visit. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered two primary aspects of clause 600.211. Firstly, it examined whether the visa applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa and any subsequent bridging visas. The Tribunal found that the applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2008 on a subclass 456 Business (Short Stay) visa, had remained in Australia unlawfully on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2018, and had not complied with the conditions of some of the bridging visas granted to her. Secondly, the Tribunal assessed whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed subclass 600 visa, including the conditions not to work or study for more than three months, and not to remain in Australia after the end of her permitted stay.

The Tribunal considered the proposed financial arrangements for the applicant's visit, noting that a Mr Dickson Mak offered accommodation and financial support. However, it also took into account the applicant's personal circumstances, including her ownership of a mortgaged apartment in China and her employment in a shoe shop there. Despite these factors, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.