Mashat (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream), made by a woman from Uzbekistan. The visa applicant sought to visit her Australian citizen partner, who was separated from his wife and going through a divorce. The partner, an Australian citizen by refugee settlement, had two children from a previous marriage and was also divorced. The visa applicant had two sons and was also divorcing her husband. The core of the dispute revolved around the visa applicant's genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as per clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa (including not working, not studying for more than three months, not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay, and not being entitled to a substantive visa while in Australia), and any other relevant matters. The purpose of the visit was to spend time with her partner, which is a permissible purpose for a Tourist stream visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, finding that clause 600.211 was not met. This conclusion was primarily based on inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the visa applicant and her partner regarding how and where they first met. The partner's initial written statement indicated they met in a hotel in Bangkok where the visa applicant was working, whereas both applicants later testified they met in Phuket while the visa applicant was holidaying with her mother and children. While the partner attempted to reconcile these accounts by suggesting they later went to Bangkok together and that the visa applicant may have exaggerated her employment to impress him, the Tribunal found these explanations insufficient. The Tribunal considered the discrepancy to reflect poorly on the credibility of both applicants and raised doubts about the genuineness of the visa applicant's intention to visit Australia temporarily, particularly in light of the potential for her to provide false information for personal gain.