TRUONG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Visitor) in the Tourist stream, brought before the Tribunal by the review applicant on behalf of the visa applicant. The central dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 600.211, which necessitates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the granted visa's purpose. This involved assessing whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa, whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering any other relevant matters. The visa applicant sought to visit his sister in Australia, a purpose for which a Sponsored Family stream visa may be granted.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the visa applicant's past compliance with visa conditions, noting his previous visit to Australia from January to April 2009 without any indication of non-compliance. The Tribunal also examined the applicant's intention to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, which include 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 permitted stay. The Tribunal took into account the visa applicant's age (61), his family and business interests in Vietnam (wife, two adult children, shrimp farm, and grocery store), and the assurances from both the applicant and the review applicant that he had not worked illegally during his previous visit. The Tribunal accepted these assurances and noted that the review applicant stated her brother had assisted with household tasks during his prior stay.

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, finding that the requirements of clause 600.211 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, directing that the visa applicant met the specified criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa.