Krishnappa (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, made by a visa applicant who sought to visit his sister, a permanent resident in Australia. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria under cl.600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the granted visa purpose. This involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, and whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not studying for more than three months, not seeking a substantive visa while in Australia, and departing Australia at the end of their permitted stay. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on its dissatisfaction with the applicants' honesty and the genuineness of the intended visit. While accepting the review applicant's employment history and her role in referring her brother to his current employer, Job Matrix, and acknowledging the visa applicant's previous employments, the Tribunal raised concerns about the rent receipts appearing to be written at the same time. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, finding that the requirements of cl.600.211 were not met.

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