IVKOVIKJ (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 600 Visitor visa (Tourist stream). The applicant had previously been granted a visitor visa allowing her to remain in Australia for up to three months. She subsequently lodged another application onshore, stating her intention to extend her stay as a tourist, reside with an acquaintance, and assist the community through spiritual healing. She also indicated an interest in participating in a television program about her healing abilities. The delegate refused the visa, having concerns that the applicant's purpose of stay was not that of a genuine visitor and that she did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the genuine temporary stay criterion, specifically clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion requires the applicant to satisfy the Minister that they genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia and that they will depart Australia at the end of their lawful stay. The Tribunal had to assess the applicant's stated intentions against the evidence presented, including her claims of providing spiritual healing, potential involvement with a television program, and her relationship with her onshore contacts.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's activities and stated intentions. While the applicant claimed to be a tourist and intended to return to her home country, the Tribunal noted her declaration that she had been providing spiritual healing to people in Australia and her intention to be involved in a television program featuring this ability. The Tribunal found that these activities, coupled with the information suggesting a significant number of people sought her healing services, raised concerns about the genuineness of her temporary stay. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes for which the visa was granted, and therefore concluded that clause 600.211 was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.