MAC (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) tourist stream, brought before the Migration Review Tribunal. The primary dispute involved the second named applicant's eligibility for the visa, specifically whether she met the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant. The first named applicant's application was found to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and a combined application was deemed unavailable.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the second named applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, considering her stated intention to visit her parents in Australia and attend a family reunion, and the circumstances of her family in Vietnam. The Tribunal also had to consider the validity of a certificate regarding the disclosure of certain information under s 375A of the *Migration Act 1958*, although it ultimately found this information was not probative to its decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the second applicant's parents in Australia were willing to provide accommodation and financial support, and her siblings residing in Australia had provided evidence of their financial capacity, these factors alone did not negate her genuine temporary entrant status. The Tribunal noted the applicant's husband and children remained in Vietnam, and that she and her husband owned property there, which were indicators of her ties to her home country. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's stated intention to return to Australia for "very important occasions" such as a family member's death, which suggested a potential intention to remain in Australia beyond the initial visit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the second named visa applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa, specifically clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal reiterated that it did not have jurisdiction in respect of the first named visa applicant.