Nguyen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Vietnamese citizen seeking a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, Tourist stream. The applicant had a history of holding various Australian visas since 2006, primarily related to study, and had been on bridging visas since January 2018. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of tourism, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the visa's granted purpose. This involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their previous substantive and bridging visas, whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The applicant's stated purpose for the visa had evolved from completing a university subject to conducting tourist activities for three months, after which they intended to apply for a permanent visa onshore.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's compliance with past visa conditions, including an explanation for a period of unlawful status. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's stated intention to apply for a permanent visa onshore after the tourist visa expired, and to remain in Australia, indicated a breach of conditions 8503 (not entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia) and 8531 (must not remain in Australia after the end of permitted stay). This intention demonstrated that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.