Nosrati (Migration)

The matter before the Tribunal concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) in the tourist stream. The central dispute revolved around 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.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, 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 visit was to see family, specifically her children and grandchildren, which aligned with the permissible purposes for a tourist stream visa.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicant's previous compliant travel history to Australia, noting that both the applicant and her spouse had abided by all visa conditions on prior visits. Furthermore, the Tribunal took into account the pending application for a Contributory Parent Visa (subclass 143), which indicated the applicant's incentive to comply with all visa conditions to avoid jeopardising that application. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's stated intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, including not working in Australia, not studying for more than three months, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, finding that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant met the specified criteria.