Prum (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for merits review of a delegate's decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (tourist stream), to a male citizen of Cambodia. The applicant's sister, an Australian citizen, lodged the application for review. The delegate had refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. This involved considering whether the applicant had complied with previous visa conditions, intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal had invited the review applicant (the visa applicant's sister) to provide information in writing by a specified date and to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of sufficient information provided by the visa applicant to satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion. Despite the visa applicant's stated intention to visit his sister for up to three months, he provided no details of significant dates necessitating his presence in Australia. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies regarding his employment status, with departmental records indicating a gap in his claimed employment as a marketing manager. The Tribunal also noted that the review applicant failed to provide the requested information by the deadline, leading to the cancellation of the hearing and a decision based on the available material. The Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.