Kumar (Migration)

The case of *Kumar (Migration)* concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The review applicant, representing the visa applicant, sought to have a decision of the Tribunal reviewed. The central dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, a requirement stipulated by clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This assessment involved considering whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the applicant's ties to her home country, including her family responsibilities, financial circumstances, and personal interests.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the visa applicant's strong ties to Fiji, including her responsibility to care for her younger daughter who was completing medical studies there, her financial independence through a farm and savings, and her active social and community involvement. The Tribunal noted the applicant's previous compliant visits to Australia and the fact that a security bond had been posted and returned on a prior occasion. These factors, taken together, satisfied the Tribunal that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.