Gaievskyi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Maksym Gaievskyi regarding a decision to affirm the refusal of a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa, for his father, Mr Leonid Haievskyi. The primary issue before the court was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The court was required to determine if the Tribunal had correctly considered whether the visa applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of his last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, and whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. The visa applicant sought to visit his son, the review applicant, and his family in Australia, including meeting his only grandson for the first time.

The court noted that the visa applicant had a history of compliant travel to other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, and Turkey. However, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the review applicant's own migration history in Australia, which involved multiple visa applications and grants, including a period on bridging visas following relationship breakdowns, and the subsequent application for Contributory Parent visas for his parents. The Tribunal accepted the visa applicant's intention to visit his son and family but ultimately concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, implying that the overall circumstances, including the review applicant's history, may have raised concerns about the genuine temporary entrant requirement.