LI (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a Visitor visa application made by a citizen of China, who sought to travel to Australia for up to three months to visit her son, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren. The review applicant, the visa applicant's son and an Australian permanent resident, supported his mother's application, stating his desire for her to celebrate the birth of a third grandchild and assist with childcare. The visa applicant resides in China with her eldest son, who has cerebral palsy and requires her care.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous visas and whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not studying for more than three months, not applying for a substantive visa while in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant and review applicant provided consistent and credible evidence. It accepted that the visa applicant's personal circumstances, including her need to care for her disabled son in China, meant she had not worked and would not seek to work or study in Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant would comply with the relevant visa conditions and genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose.

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