Jia (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Tourist stream, Subclass 600, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criteria 4013 (PIC 4013), and whether the 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. PIC 4013 mandates that an applicant affected by a risk factor, such as a previous visa cancellation under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958, must satisfy specific alternate criteria.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4013 because a previous Subclass 600 visa had been cancelled under section 116(1)(d) of the Act on 26 April 2019. While the applicant provided an explanation for the cancellation, attributing it to a name change and alleged negligence by a visa service rather than an intention to conceal information, the Tribunal noted it did not have access to all the evidence before the original decision-maker and that decision was not under review. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it was not necessary to determine the issue of genuine temporary stay, as the failure to meet PIC 4013 was determinative.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.