Lam (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream), brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The core dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The purpose of the visit was to spend time with her cousin and other relatives in Australia.

The Tribunal considered evidence that the applicant had previously held a visitor visa and departed Australia before its expiry, with no evidence of non-compliance. It also noted the conditions of the proposed visa, including restrictions on work, study, and remaining in Australia. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's stated intention to visit for up to three months to spend time with family, despite her cousin's ability to take only three weeks off work. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's cousin had the financial capacity to sponsor the visit and accepted the evidence regarding the purpose and duration of the visit.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant meets this criterion.