Mohadissa (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for Visitor (Class FA) visas by the visa applicants, who sought to enter Australia to visit their daughter and care for their grandchildren. The primary dispute concerned whether the visa applicants met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, having regard to their compliance with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, their intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The visa applicants had no prior substantive or bridging visas in Australia, and their previous Visitor visa applications were refused in 2012 and 2015. The conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa included not working, not engaging in study or training for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa (other than a protection visa) while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of their permitted stay.

The Tribunal accepted that the visa applicants intended to comply with the conditions regarding not working, not studying, and not applying for substantive visas while in Australia. However, the Tribunal found that the visa applicants were likely to apply for protection visas, which would mean they intended to remain in Australia longer than permitted by a visitor visa. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and therefore concluded that clause 600.211 was not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicants Visitor (Class FA) visas.