Raza (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, in the Sponsored Family stream. The applicant sought to visit her daughter, who was pregnant with twins, and her family in Australia. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Nora Lamont, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This required consideration of whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of her last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The delegate had previously found that the applicant was not settled in Australia, despite departmental policy allowing for flexibility, and was not satisfied that she genuinely intended to stay temporarily, citing concerns about the situation in her home region of Pakistan and a lack of evidence regarding financial support or compliance with immigration laws.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had only been in Australia for 19 months at the time of the delegate's decision, by the time of the Tribunal hearing, she had been in Australia for 23 months, which it considered a reasonable period to be deemed "settled" under Regulation 1.03. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had travelled to Iraq and Iran and complied with her visa conditions, returning to Pakistan before their expiry, and was satisfied she would comply with Australian visa requirements. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that while the region of Pakistan from which the applicant hailed had experienced violence, security had improved, and the applicant and her family had a stable life there. The Tribunal considered the sponsor's circumstances, including having three young children and the need for her mother's presence, to be compelling.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met and remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.