Palu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (tourist stream), made by a Tongan national residing in Japan, who was employed as a professional footballer. The review applicant, the visa applicant's fiancé and a New Zealand citizen, was in Australia on a Special Category visa and had recently given birth to their child. The visa applicant sought to enter Australia for a family visit of up to six months, with his travel to be self-funded. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This involved assessing whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's circumstances, including his employment in Japan, previous compliant travel to Australia and other countries, and his intention to apply for a partner visa, indicated a genuine temporary stay.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant had a history of compliant travel to Australia and other countries, having always travelled within his permitted visa periods. It also considered the visa applicant's intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, which include not working in Australia, not engaging in study or training 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 his permitted stay. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that the visa applicant intended to visit his fiancé and daughter, acknowledging the review applicant's difficult pregnancy and the desire for the visa applicant's support during the post-partum period.

Consequently, 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. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met the specified criteria.