Sharma (Migration)

The matter before the Tribunal concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, by a fifty-three-year-old Fijian citizen. The applicant sought to visit his sister in Sydney for up to three months, intending to self-fund his visit and stay with his sister. The visa applicant owned and operated an upholstery business in Fiji and had four adult children residing with him. The review applicant, the visa applicant's sister and an Australian citizen, provided submissions and testimony to the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates that the Tribunal be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment requires consideration of whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visa, whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The specific conditions of the Subclass 600 visa relevant to this case included not working in Australia, not engaging in study or training for more than three months, not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay, and not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia.

The Tribunal considered the visa applicant's established business in Fiji, his family ties there, including his four adult children who resided with him and were not entirely financially independent, and his obligations towards them. It also noted that the visa applicant had never travelled overseas before and had previously been refused a Visitor visa in 2022. While the Tribunal accepted the visa applicant's intention to visit family and his proposed short stay, and was satisfied he would comply with visa conditions 8101 and 8201, it also noted differing evidence provided by the review applicant regarding the visa applicant's disclosure of information and his relationships. The Tribunal found that the visa applicant's close family ties in Fiji would act as an incentive for him to return home. Despite initially finding that the visa applicant met the criteria of cl 600.211, the Tribunal ultimately remitted the application for reconsideration.