Maharjan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) in the tourist stream. The applicant sought to visit siblings in Australia. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the 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.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involves assessing whether the applicant has complied with the conditions of any previous visas, intends to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. Specifically, the Tribunal had to evaluate factors that might incentivise the applicant to remain in Australia or return to Nepal.

The Tribunal reasoned that as the applicant had not previously visited Australia, the criterion regarding compliance with previous visa conditions was not applicable. It accepted the applicant's stated intention not to study or work in Australia. The Tribunal found the review applicant, who was the applicant's sister, to be a credible witness. The Tribunal accepted her evidence that the applicant, a 29-year-old married man from Nepal, intended to accompany his parents to visit his siblings in Australia. The original plan to attend a sister's wedding had passed, and the revised plan was for the applicant to accompany his parents to Australia around August 2022, coinciding with the birth of the review applicant's child. The applicant's proposed stay was for two weeks to a month, after which he would return to Nepal.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and therefore met the requirements of clause 600.211. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant met this criterion.