Mirmohammad Hosseini (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (tourist stream), made by a 64-year-old national of Iran. The visa applicant sought to visit his son, an Australian citizen, and his family in Australia for up to three months. The review applicant was the visa applicant's son. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl.600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment required consideration of whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous visas, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant's purpose of visiting his son and family was a legitimate one for a visa of this type. It noted that the applicant had not previously travelled outside Iran and accepted that he intended to visit his son and family, not to work or study for more than three months. The Tribunal also considered the conditions of the proposed visa, including the prohibition on working, studying for more than three months, applying for a further substantive visa while in Australia, and remaining in Australia after the permitted stay. The Tribunal accepted the review applicant's evidence regarding the desire for his father to spend time with his Australian family, including his grandson.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose and that the requirements of cl.600.211 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met this criterion.