Nguyen (Migration)

This matter concerned a Vietnamese citizen's application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Visitor), to visit his Australian permanent resident mother. The applicant sought to visit for up to three months, intending to stay from 1 to 30 April 2022. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, particularly in light of his criminal convictions in Vietnam for theft, robbery, and break and enter, for which he received an 18-month prison sentence in 2005. The review applicant, the applicant's mother, offered a $15,000 security bond to demonstrate her son's genuine intention to comply with visa conditions. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and associated regulations. This involved assessing the applicant's personal circumstances, including his employment and financial position in Vietnam, his stated intentions for visiting Australia, and the weight to be given to his past criminal convictions and imprisonment. The Tribunal also had to consider the significance of the offered security bond and the applicant's mother's medical circumstances as presented in her statutory declaration and supporting documents.

In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal considered the applicant's criminal history, noting that while it had been nearly 17 years since his conviction, the nature of the offences and the custodial sentence were significant factors. The Tribunal also assessed the applicant's financial position and employment in Vietnam, finding them to be insecure. The offer of a security bond, while noted, was not considered sufficient to outweigh the concerns arising from the applicant's criminal record and the perceived insecurity of his financial and employment circumstances in Vietnam. The Tribunal concluded that there was a real possibility the applicant might seek to work in Australia, thus not intending to depart at the end of his proposed visit.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the visa application was refused.