Nisha (Migration)

This case concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor), by a woman from Fiji. The review applicant, the sister of the visa applicant, sought to have the decision to refuse the visa reconsidered. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa 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 visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involved assessing her genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily. This assessment was to consider her compliance with previous visa conditions, her intention to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The visa applicant, aged 44, resided in Fiji with her husband, who operated a family farm and had extended family in Fiji. She had no children and had experienced past chronic illnesses preventing her from working. The proposed visit to Australia was for one to three months to visit her sister and other family members, with her husband remaining in Fiji to manage the home and farm.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the visa applicant had no prior travel history outside Fiji, and therefore no history of non-compliance with visa conditions. While the review applicant's parents had a complex immigration history in Australia, involving an initial application for the wrong visa subclass and a subsequent ministerial intervention granting them work visas, the Tribunal found this history did not necessarily reflect negatively on the visa applicant. The Tribunal also considered the visa applicant's husband's incentive to ensure her compliance, given his own family members living overseas and his desire for them to visit Australia in the future. The Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of her visit.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.