Tull (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Tourist stream), made by a seventy-year-old retired citizen of Papua New Guinea (PNG) who wished to visit his Australian citizen daughter and grandchildren in Australia for up to three months. The delegate refused the visa, finding that the applicant had failed to provide a copy of his passport bio-data page and was not satisfied that he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by criterion cl 600.211 of the Migration Regulations. The review applicant, the visa applicant's daughter, sought review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting family, having regard to whether he had complied substantially with the conditions of his last substantive visa, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's extensive migration history, his financial capacity to self-fund his travel, and his ties to PNG.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant had an extensive history of travel to Australia on various visas since the late 1980s without any indicated non-compliance with visa conditions. While the applicant initially failed to provide his passport bio-data page, this was rectified during the review process. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's daughter as a credible witness and was satisfied, based on her testimony and the provided financial documentation, that the applicant was a retiree with sufficient savings and a stable retirement income to self-fund his visit. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the applicant intended to comply with visa conditions, including not working or studying for more than three months and departing Australia at the end of his permitted stay, given his strong family ties and established life in PNG.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criterion in cl 600.211 was met. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration, finding that the delegate's decision was not justified.