SARAI (MIGRATION)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream), made by a citizen of Serbia. The applicant sought to visit her de facto partner, an Australian solicitor. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. The decision was made by Senior Member Louise Nicholls.

The court was required to determine if the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, considering whether she had substantially complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The visa conditions in question included not working in Australia, not engaging in study for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of her permitted stay.

The Senior Member considered the applicant's circumstances, including her age, her freelance work as a hair and makeup artist, and her enrolment in a fashion course in Belgrade. The Senior Member also noted the relationship with her de facto partner, their travel history together, and the partner's financial capacity and willingness to lodge a security bond. Despite evidence suggesting the applicant intended to complete her studies in Serbia and had no intention to work or study in Australia, and considering the country information regarding Serbia, the Senior Member ultimately found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 600.211.

The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211.