Han (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) in the tourist stream, against the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering substantial compliance with the conditions of the applicant's last substantive visa, their intention to comply with the conditions of the visa applied for, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key aspects of clause 600.211. Firstly, it needed to assess whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa, which was a student visa. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, specifically the conditions not to work in Australia (condition 8101) and not to engage in study or training for more than three months (condition 8201).

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa. This conclusion was based on the applicant's admission that their enrolment in their final course of study was cancelled due to unsatisfactory course progress, and that they remained in Australia without being enrolled in any course. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not intend to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, particularly condition 8101, given their admission of having worked to support themselves while in Australia on previous student visas and their failure to comply with the study requirements of their last visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and therefore found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.