Myburgh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Derrick Myburgh against a decision regarding his father's application for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa. The visa applicant, an 89-year-old South African national, sought to visit his son and step-sons in Australia, and combine this with a trip to New Zealand. He was to be accompanied by his wife and the travel was to be funded by his step-son. The applicant had previously visited Australia on multiple occasions without issue.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clauses 600.211 and 600.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Clause 600.212 requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant has adequate means to support themselves during their intended stay, while clause 600.211 requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This latter assessment involves considering whether the applicant has complied with previous visa conditions and intends to comply with the conditions of the proposed visa, such as not working or studying for more than three months, and not remaining in Australia beyond their permitted stay.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant's history of compliance with previous visa conditions, including multiple visits to Australia, demonstrated a genuine intention to comply with the terms of the Subclass 600 visa. The stated purpose of visiting family, supported by a letter of invitation and the applicant's age and marital status, were considered relevant factors indicating a temporary stay. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had adequate means to support himself and intended to comply with all visa conditions.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant met the requirements of clauses 600.211 and 600.212. The application for the Visitor (Class FA) visa was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that these criteria were met.