Feyesa (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600. The applicant sought to enter Australia to visit family for the birth of a new child. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The specific conditions under consideration included not working in Australia, not engaging in study 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.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not previously been granted a visa to enter Australia and that previous visitor visa applications lodged at the time of the birth of other children had been refused. While the Tribunal accepted the applicant's stated intention not to engage in study or training, and her assurance that she did not intend to work or seek to remain in Australia unlawfully, it was not satisfied on the evidence that these intentions would be upheld. The Tribunal found that there were insufficient details regarding the applicant's business in Ethiopia, her income since her husband's death, and her family and social connections in Ethiopia to be satisfied that she genuinely intended to stay temporarily.

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