Suarez (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applications of three visa applicants for Visitor (Class FA) visas. The central dispute concerned whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting family and travelling, as sought. This involved assessing whether the applicants had complied substantially with the conditions of their last substantive visa, and whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant matters.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the visa applicants had previously complied substantially with the conditions of their prior visitor visas by departing Australia within the permitted stay. Furthermore, the Tribunal gave weight to the evidence provided by the review applicant, who confirmed the visa applicants' awareness of and intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not engaging in study for more than three months, not seeking further substantive visas, and departing Australia at the end of their permitted stay. The review applicant's business interests and commitment to maintaining a good relationship with immigration authorities were considered relevant to their assurance of the applicants' compliance.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose, and therefore met the requirements of clause 600.211. The Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration with a direction that the applicants met this criterion.