Durmaz (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, where the primary issue was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. The review applicant, who was the visa applicant's brother, sought to sponsor his brother for the visa. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Regulations, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This involved considering whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the visa applicant had never travelled to Australia, there was no history of non-compliance with Australian visa conditions. Evidence was presented that the applicant had travelled to the Netherlands and complied with visa conditions there. The Tribunal also considered the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject, including not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa other than a protection visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay. The visa applicant provided evidence of approved annual leave from his employer, indicating an intention to return to his employment.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, and therefore met the criteria under clause 600.211. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met this criterion.