Lerspiphopporn (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, by an applicant who was unable to depart Australia due to COVID-19 pandemic travel restrictions. The applicant had completed studies and was awaiting a registered chartered flight home to Thailand, but had not yet received confirmation. The applicant also expressed a desire to travel around Australia. The decision under review affirmed the refusal of the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering whether the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's compliance with previous visa conditions, noting that there was no evidence of substantial non-compliance with their prior Visitor visa or their current Bridging A visa, which prohibited work before study commenced. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose. Despite the applicant's stated intention to return to Thailand where his family resides, and his plans to travel within Australia, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

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