Un (Migration)

The applicant, Un, sought review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed the refusal of his application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, Tourist stream. The applicant sought to remain in Australia to visit and support his Australian citizen father.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of his previous visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed visa, and any other relevant matters. The conditions of the proposed visa included not working in Australia, not engaging in study for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa (other than a protection visa) while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of his permitted stay.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a history of compliance with visa conditions, his financial circumstances raised concerns. The applicant declared a retirement income of approximately $16,000 to $17,000 per annum, which the Tribunal considered insufficient to support himself in Sydney while also paying his son's university tuition fees. Although the applicant claimed his father would provide accommodation and food, and that he did not intend to work, the Tribunal was unconvinced that he would not seek employment given his limited financial resources. The applicant's assertion that he would have sought permanent residency long ago if that were his intention was considered, but did not outweigh the financial concerns.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia and that he would comply with the condition of not working. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.