Okili (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream), made by a visa applicant from Jordan. The applicant sought to visit family in Australia. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the genuine temporary entrant requirement. The decision was made by Tania Flood, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their previous substantive visa, whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The specific conditions of the proposed visa included not working in Australia, not engaging in study for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered evidence of the applicant's ties to Jordan, including his ownership and operation of a supermarket business, his partner and children residing there, and his previous compliance with Australian visa conditions. The applicant had previously been granted a Visitor visa in 2017 and departed Australia one day before its expiry. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's willingness to pay a security bond. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.