Uzun Isik (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Tourist stream, Subclass 600, made by the first named applicant, who sought to visit her sister in Australia. The review applicant, the sister of the visa applicant, is an Australian citizen and a single mother of three children, one of whom has a serious heart condition requiring ongoing medical treatment. The visa applicant, who resides in Turkey with her husband and two children, wished to visit her sister for one month to provide emotional support during this difficult period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations. This assessment involved considering whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also had to determine if the visa applicant met the criterion that she intends to visit an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is a parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother, or sister.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant had previously complied with her visa conditions, having entered Australia on a Visitor visa and departed before its expiry. It also considered that the visa applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, which include not working in Australia and not remaining in Australia after the end of her permitted stay. The Tribunal noted the close relationship between the sisters and the visa applicant's desire to support her sister through a challenging time, including her nephew's upcoming surgery. Furthermore, the visa applicant had the financial capacity to fund her travel and would reside with her sister. The Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application of the first named applicant for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria of clause 600.211. The Tribunal also noted that it did not have jurisdiction in relation to the other named applicants.