Fayyaz (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Sponsored Family stream). The review applicant, acting on behalf of the visa applicant, sought to have the refusal set aside. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by the visa criteria.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. In making this assessment, the Tribunal was to consider whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous visas, intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

Initially, the Tribunal indicated that it expected the visa applicant to provide direct evidence at the hearing, stating that it could not speculate on what the applicant's evidence might have been if she did not participate. However, following this communication, the review applicant provided further documentation, including bank statements, pay cheques, letters of employment, and a declaration from the visa applicant. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that, having considered the provided evidence, it was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia and that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration. The direction was that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa.