Nguyen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, Tourist stream. The applicant, a Vietnamese citizen, had been in Australia since December 2013, primarily accompanying her husband who had held various student and temporary graduate visas. The central dispute was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under cl.600.211, which involves assessing whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of her previous visas, intends to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The applicant's stated purpose for the visa was to accompany her husband and family, which is a permissible purpose for a Tourist stream visa. However, the Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's overall migration history and stated intentions.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of the applicant failing to comply with the conditions of her previous visas, and she indicated an intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, such as not working or studying for more than three months. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, particularly her stated desire to remain permanently in Australia and her extensive continuous stay in the country since 2013, indicated an intention to use the tourist visa as a pathway to apply for a permanent visa. This, combined with her migration history not being commensurate with a genuine tourist, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the requirements of cl.600.211 were met. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal to grant the visa, was therefore affirmed by the Tribunal.