Liu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, made by a visa applicant whose decision to refuse the visa was under review. The review applicant, the son of the visa applicant, sought to have his father visit him in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa 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 complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa, whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal noted that it was not provided with information regarding the visa applicant's compliance with the conditions of their last substantive visa. It then considered the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, which included not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa (other than a protection visa) while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay. In its assessment of other relevant matters, the Tribunal heard evidence from the review applicant regarding his father's family in China, his parents' divorce, and his father's business as a factory owner. However, inconsistencies emerged in the review applicant's statements about his father's visits to China and his own return to China, and the fact that the review applicant himself had not completed his studies in Australia after arriving in 2014, later becoming a permanent resident in 2016 as a minor.

Based on these considerations, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met and affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.