Gill (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, made by a visa applicant intending to visit her husband in Australia. The review applicant, who is the visa applicant's husband, sought review of the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant met the criteria under cl.600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The Tribunal considered two aspects of cl.600.211: whether the visa applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous substantive visa, and whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. As the visa applicant had not previously held a substantive visa in Australia, there was no history of compliance or non-compliance to assess. The Tribunal then examined the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject, including not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa other than a protection visa, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant intended to comply with these conditions. It accepted that she would be accommodated and supported by her husband, had sufficient personal savings, and had no indication of needing or intending to work or study in Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting her husband and that the requirements of cl.600.211 were met. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met this criterion.