Vilain (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3513

Vilain (Migration) [2018] AATA 3513 (9 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Robin Charles Fernand Vilain

CASE NUMBER:  1708761

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1237168

MEMBER:Mary Urquhart

DATE:9 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Statement made on 09 August 2018 at 10:54am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Tourist stream – Extension of stay – Purpose of visit – Business activities – Applicant offshore at time of the hearing – Decision under review affirmed         

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 362B
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 600.211, 600.221

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 31 March 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 3 April 2017.

2. The department file reveals that in completing the application form the applicant requested a further stay until 30 September 2017, stating his reasons as “Extending a stay in Melbourne to conduct additional business meetings”. No other reasons for the extension of stay were provided.

3. The delegate made the decision refusing the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl. 600.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. The applicant sought a review of the decision.

5. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 10 September 2018 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review.

6. The hearing invitation explained that if he were not able to attend the hearing, the applicant should advise the Tribunal as soon as possible.

7. The applicant was also put on notice that if he did not attend the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear.

8. On 8 August 2018 the Tribunal was advised that the applicant is now residing in Canada and will not be attending the hearing. The letter requested the hearing be “vacated”.

9. No further information in support of the application for review was given by the applicant in his application for review.

10. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided, pursuant to s. 362B of the Act, to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

11. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

12. The issue in this case is whether cl.600.211 is met, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the applicant was subject; whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and any other relevant matter.

13. In the present case, the visa applicant states that he seeks the visa for the purposes of conducting additional business meetings.

14. The Tribunal records that the visitor visa program is designed to allow genuine tourists an opportunity to travel to Australia temporarily for the purposes of genuine tourist activities. It does not allow for people on visitor visas to come to, or remain in Australia for a purpose which is related to business.

15. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s purpose is not a purpose for which a visa in the Tourist stream may be granted.

16. Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets clause 600.221.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

    Mary Urquhart
    Member