Shefaju (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) in the Tourist stream, made by the visa applicant. The core dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the relevant regulations. The applicant sought to visit her two sons and their families in Australia. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the granted visa's purpose. This assessment involved considering whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of her last substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, and whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the applicant's genuine temporary entrant status. It considered evidence regarding the applicant's previous travel history, specifically to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where she had complied with all visa conditions. The Tribunal found the review applicant, who provided oral evidence, to be an honest and credible witness. The Tribunal also considered evidence from other witnesses who impressed it as honest and credible, and who supported the family members' proposed travel to Australia in compliance with visa conditions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and therefore found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria under clause 600.211.