Fang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor), brought before the Tribunal by a visa applicant. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, a requirement stipulated by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the visa applicant met the criteria outlined in clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the visa's granted purpose. This involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, and whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. Additionally, the Tribunal was to consider any other relevant matters.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant had previously held a visitor visa in 2000 and had not substantially complied with its conditions, having remained unlawfully in Australia for nine years until 2010. While the applicant sought the visa to attend her granddaughter's wedding, the Tribunal noted that this wedding had already occurred. However, another granddaughter's wedding was scheduled for March 2018, which was the stated purpose for the current application. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant had initially come to Australia in 2000 to assist her daughter and care for her grandchildren, and that she chose to remain without a visa for nine years due to family circumstances, including her husband's death and her daughter and son-in-law's work commitments. Despite the stated intention to attend a future wedding, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's history of prolonged unlawful presence in Australia meant it was not satisfied that she genuinely intended to stay temporarily.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met and affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.