Kumar (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant's stated purposes for the visa were to tidy up his affairs, marry, and visit his de facto partner.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This clause requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, considering factors such as substantial compliance with previous visa conditions, intention to comply with the proposed visa conditions, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a complex migration history involving previous visa cancellations and refusals, and had departed Australia on 26 November 2023. Crucially, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and his representative was unable to contact him, indicating he had left for India. While there was no information suggesting non-compliance with previous visa conditions, the applicant's departure from Australia and failure to attend the hearing, coupled with the inability of his representative to contact him, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary stay requirement under clause 600.211. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant would likely not meet clause 600.411, which pertains to the circumstances for granting the visa.

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