de Vaulx (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa by a person who was outside Australia at the time of application. The applicant sought to satisfy the criteria under subclause 155.212(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to have substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties with Australia that are of benefit to Australia, and to meet certain residency and absence requirements, unless there are compelling reasons for an absence. The applicant did not claim to meet any other subclauses of cl.155.212.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties with Australia that were of benefit to Australia, and whether there were compelling reasons for the applicant's absence from Australia. The applicant's primary claim for a personal tie of benefit to Australia was her relationship with her mother, who was the review applicant. The applicant had spent the majority of her time outside Australia in the two years before being granted a Subclass 801 Partner (Residence) visa on the basis of being a member of her mother's family unit. She returned to Australia briefly before being granted that visa and then departed again shortly after. Her only subsequent return to Australia was for a 21-day visit in 2010 for her mother's birthday.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to demonstrate substantial business, cultural, or employment ties with Australia. While she suggested her skills developed in France could be used in Australia, there was no evidence of her having applied for or been offered work in Australia, or any current intention to do so. The Tribunal also found that her attendance at school in Darwin in her youth did not constitute a substantial cultural tie. Regarding the personal tie of her relationship with her mother, the Tribunal concluded that this, in conjunction with the applicant's limited time in Australia and extended periods spent overseas, did not satisfy the requirement of having substantial personal ties with Australia that are of benefit to Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse the visa.