Mufundirwa (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, in the Sponsored Family stream. The visa applicant, a citizen of Zimbabwe, sought to visit his brother and sister-in-law in Australia for one month. The review applicant, who is the visa applicant's brother and a permanent resident of Australia, provided evidence and submissions in support of the application. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations. This involved considering whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa (including not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay), and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal noted that as the visa applicant had not previously travelled to Australia, there was no record of compliance or non-compliance with prior visa conditions. The Tribunal considered the visa applicant's intention to comply with the proposed visa conditions and also took into account other relevant matters. The Tribunal found the review applicant to be a credible witness, and the visa applicant's evidence, despite difficulties with the phone line, was consistent with his brother's. The Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought.

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 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.