Parcell (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor), made by an applicant from the Philippines. The applicant sought to visit his mother in Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This required the Tribunal to consider 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 Subclass 600 visa (including not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the permitted stay), and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including his age, long-term relationship, employment as a delivery driver, and role as a caretaker of family property in the Philippines, as factors supporting his intention to return. However, the Tribunal also noted the applicant's previous lengthy visits to Australia and the fact that he lodged a new visitor visa application immediately after departing Australia in February 2019. This led to a concern that the applicant might be using the visitor visa to remain in Australia to care for his mother, suggesting that a visitor visa might not be the most appropriate option if that was the intention. The review applicant and Mr Lambert indicated that Mr Lambert was the review applicant's full-time carer, which the Tribunal accepted.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.