Lam (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The primary applicant, Mr Ka Keung Lam, sought to meet the requirements of subclause 155.212(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. A second applicant, Ms Man Ling Mona So, was permitted to provide evidence alongside Mr Lam, though she was not formally the review applicant. The dispute centred on whether Mr Lam met the criteria for the visa, particularly concerning his ties to Australia and his residency history.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Lam met the requirements of subclause 155.212(2), (3), or (3A) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether Mr Lam had been lawfully present in Australia for a sufficient period as a permanent visa holder, whether he possessed substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties to Australia that were of benefit to the country, and whether his absences from Australia were justified by compelling reasons. The Tribunal also considered the position of the second applicant, Ms So, and whether she met any of the visa requirements, including whether she was a member of a family unit of a person who met the criteria.

The Tribunal found that Mr Lam did not meet subclause 155.212(2) as he had not been present in Australia as a permanent visa holder for at least two years in the five years preceding his application. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Lam had substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties to Australia that were of benefit to the country, despite his extensive experience in government property management, as he was largely retired and not seeking employment in Australia. Regarding the second applicant, the Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction over her. For completeness, the Tribunal noted there was no evidence to suggest she would have met the visa requirements, including the residency history and substantial ties criteria, even if she had been the nominated review applicant.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Lam the Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa. The Tribunal also stated it had no jurisdiction in relation to the second applicant, Ms So.