Rajinder (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of decisions to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas (Subclass 600) to four applicants. The review applicant, Mr Davinder Singh, was the brother of the first named visa applicant and the brother-in-law of the second named visa applicant. He was also the uncle of the third and fourth named visa applicants. The primary dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decisions in relation to all four applicants, and if so, whether the first named visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the visa refusal decisions concerning the second, third, and fourth named applicants, given the relationship between the review applicant and these individuals. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the first named visa applicant, Mr Davinder Singh, genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether he 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, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction in relation to the first named visa applicant, Mr Davinder Singh, as the review applicant was his brother and the visa refusal was a Part 5 reviewable decision under section 338(7) of the Migration Act 1958. Regarding the second named visa applicant, Mrs Simerjit Kaur, the Tribunal determined that while her sister, an Australian citizen, was named in the application, the review applicant (her brother-in-law) did not have standing to apply for review under section 347(2)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in relation to Mrs Simerjit Kaur. For the third and fourth named visa applicants, the Tribunal found no jurisdiction as the review applicant, their uncle, was not a relative listed in section 338(7)(b) of the Act. In relation to Mr Davinder Singh's intention to stay temporarily, the Tribunal was satisfied that he intended to comply with the visa conditions, including not working or studying for more than three months, and that his family responsibilities and ties in India provided a significant incentive for his return.