PHAM (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, where the applicant sought to visit family in Australia. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically concerning whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The Tribunal was required to consider several factors in determining the applicant's genuine temporary entrant status. These included whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had no prior travel history to Australia, making compliance with past visa conditions not pertinent. However, the Tribunal considered the compliant travel history of the applicant's father and brother, who had previously complied with their visa conditions in Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the family's history of compliance suggested the applicant could reasonably be expected to comply with visa conditions and depart Australia as required. The applicant's aunt, who was sponsoring her visit, confirmed awareness of the visa conditions and the potential impact on her own situation if the applicant failed to comply. The applicant herself provided assurances of compliance with all conditions and an intention to depart Australia at the end of her permitted stay. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's full-time study of German in Vietnam, with plans to study healthcare in Germany, as evidence of her intention to return home. The applicant also confirmed she was supported by her parents and would be accompanied by her father during her visit.

Despite the Tribunal initially stating it was satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily and that clause 600.211 was met, the final decision was to remit the application for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 for the Subclass 600 visa.