LI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) tourist stream, for the review applicant's father. The primary dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involves assessing whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of their last substantive visa, intends to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the applicant's past immigration history, including an overstay and subsequent detention, and his intentions regarding compliance with conditions such as not working or studying for more than three months in Australia.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant had not complied with the conditions of his last substantive visa, as he had remained in Australia without a valid visa for an extended period before being detained and returned to China. However, the Tribunal also considered the proposed financial arrangements for the visit, noting the review applicant's financial stability and assets, and concluded that the visa applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal also addressed a certificate under s 376 of the Migration Act 1958, deeming the information contained within it irrelevant to the current application and therefore not to be considered.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211. However, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.