Nguyen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, by a visa applicant seeking to visit her sisters in Australia. The review applicant, a sister of the visa applicant, sought to have the decision not to grant the visa affirmed. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant 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 granted visa's purpose.

To determine if the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily, the Tribunal was required to assess whether she had complied substantially with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal noted the visa applicant's lack of previous travel history to Australia, but highlighted significant travel by other family members. Specifically, the review applicant and another sister had previously entered Australia on partner visas and subsequently became Australian citizens. A brother had entered on a subclass 600 tourist visa and remained in Australia, subsequently being granted a bridging visa. The review applicant also indicated that the visa applicant's mother had made multiple compliant visits to Australia on tourist visas.

The Tribunal considered the conditions to which the subclass 600 visa would be subject, including prohibitions on working, studying for more than three months, applying for most substantive visas while in Australia, and remaining in Australia after the permitted stay. Given the immigration histories of the visa applicant's siblings and mother, and the brother's current status in Australia, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.