Melhem (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream). The applicant sought to visit his siblings in Australia. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal considered the applicant's travel history, noting he had travelled to the Ivory Coast for work and complied with visa conditions there. Crucially, the Tribunal also examined the extensive history of compliance with visa conditions by numerous family members sponsored by the review applicant, including the applicant's father, sisters, and nephew, who had all previously visited Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the family's long history of substantial compliance with visa conditions, coupled with the review applicant's assurance regarding future compliance, indicated that the applicant would also adhere to the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, such as not working in Australia, not undertaking study for more than three months, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay. Given this evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.