GHELICHKHANI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Subclass 600) visa by a 66-year-old retired teacher from Iran. The visa applicant sought to visit her daughter, who had migrated to Australia in 2015, during the final stages of her pregnancy and following the birth of her grandchild. The review applicant, the daughter, and her husband were employed full-time and offered to provide any necessary support for her mother during the proposed stay. The visa applicant receives a state pension and has two adult daughters residing in Tehran, one of whom had previously visited Australia twice on visitor visas and complied with their conditions.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering whether the applicant has complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal noted that as the visa applicant had never travelled to Australia, clause 600.211(a) regarding compliance with previous visa conditions could not be assessed. However, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, specifically conditions 8101 (no work) and 8201 (no study or training for more than three months), given her age, retired status, and pension. Regarding condition 8531 (must not remain in Australia after the end of the permitted stay), the Tribunal found that the visa applicant had strong ties to Iran, where most of her close and extended family resided, and no ties to Australia apart from her daughter. The Tribunal was satisfied that the incentives for the visa applicant to comply with this condition outweighed any incentive to remain in Australia, particularly given the review applicant's awareness of the consequences of non-compliance and her desire to sponsor future visits for other family members.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted and that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met this criterion.