Mape (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream), made by a 78-year-old widow from the Philippines. The applicant sought to visit her three Australian citizen children and grandchildren residing in Australia. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of her previous visas, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The specific conditions of the Subclass 600 visa in question included not working in Australia and not engaging in study or training for more than three months.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's history of visiting Australia twelve times since 2000 to see her children. While the applicant had previously spent extended periods in Australia, including over 13 months cumulatively between October 2016 and January 2018, the Tribunal accepted her explanation for confusion regarding visa duration limits on previous visits. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant did not intend to work or study beyond the permitted duration. However, despite these considerations, the Tribunal was ultimately not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met and affirmed the decision not to grant the Visitor (Class FA) visa to the applicant.