DURMUS (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream), made by Ms Durmus. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Durmus met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied 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, her intention to comply with the conditions of the proposed visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Durmus genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia to visit and support her daughter. This involved assessing her past compliance with visa conditions, though she had not previously held a substantive visa in Australia. The Tribunal also considered her intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, specifically the conditions relating to 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 end of her permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal accepted that Ms Durmus would be financially supported by her daughter and son-in-law and had no intention or need to work in Australia, thus satisfying the condition against working. Similarly, there was no indication of an intention or need to study, satisfying the condition regarding study duration. The Tribunal also noted that condition 8503 was not a compliance condition. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the "other relevant matters" under clause 600.211(c), accepting that Ms Durmus was married and resided in Turkey with her husband, three other children, mother, and six siblings. The Tribunal concluded that the presence of these close family members provided a significant incentive for her return to Turkey, supporting her claim of a genuine temporary stay.

Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Durmus genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose and that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that Ms Durmus met the criteria under clause 600.211.