KRISHNASHARMA (Migration)

This matter concerns a decision by the Tribunal to affirm a refusal to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa to the applicant. The applicant sought the visa for the purpose of visiting his daughter in Australia.

The primary legal 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 required the Tribunal to consider the applicant's compliance with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, their intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had no history of breaching visa conditions, his circumstances raised concerns about his genuine intention to visit Australia temporarily. These concerns stemmed from the fact that the applicant, a 70-year-old retired Sri Lankan citizen, had applied for a permanent aged relative visa and was awaiting its grant. Furthermore, he had undertaken a lengthy visit to Australia between March 2016 and February 2017, and upon departing, immediately lodged another visitor visa application to return. His current visit, commencing on 1 March 2018, was permitted until 1 March 2019. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's ties to Sri Lanka appeared limited, having spent significant periods residing with other children in India and visiting them in France, and that the review applicant admitted using the visitor visa to bridge the period until the permanent visa was granted.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a genuine visitor and appeared to be using visitor visas to establish de facto residence in Australia, leading to the affirmation of the decision under review.