Mehdizadeh Dasjerdi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant, represented by the review applicant, against a decision regarding a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The appeal was heard by a Tribunal, presided over by Member L. Symons. The core dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose of visiting her daughter.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the visa's purpose, considering their compliance with previous visa conditions, their intention to comply with the proposed visa conditions, and any other relevant factors. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the applicant's compliance with past visa conditions and her intention to adhere to conditions such as not working or remaining in Australia beyond the permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the visa applicant's migration and travel history, noting her previous compliance with a subclass 676 Visitor visa. It also examined the financial capacity of the review applicant, who intended to support the visa applicant's visit, highlighting their stable employment, significant savings, and property ownership. The Tribunal found that the visa applicant, a 65-year-old retired teacher receiving a pension and possessing substantial assets and no debts in Iran, also had strong ties to her home country. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211.