Olara (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream). The applicant sought to join her Australian citizen husband, with whom she had a young child and for whom a Prospective Marriage visa application was already in progress. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not previously travelled to Australia, rendering the compliance with previous visa conditions irrelevant. It then considered the applicant's intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, which include not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia (other than a protection visa), and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay. The Tribunal reviewed evidence demonstrating a genuine and ongoing relationship between the applicant and her sponsor, including their child, the sponsor's financial support of the applicant and child, and the pending Prospective Marriage visa application. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa.

The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211.