Warrell (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Sponsored Family stream), made by a Fijian national to visit his maternal grandmother in Australia. The applicant, a student, had previously been in Australia on a Bridging visa in connection with his mother's carer visa application but had departed to complete his studies. The review applicant, who sought to sponsor the visa applicant, was his maternal grandmother and an Australian citizen. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the nominated sponsor was an eligible person to sponsor the applicant under the Sponsored Family stream, and crucially, whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This latter issue involved assessing the applicant's compliance with previous visa conditions and any other relevant matters indicating the genuineness of his temporary stay.

The Tribunal found that the nominated sponsor, the review applicant, was indeed the visa applicant's grandmother and therefore eligible to sponsor the application, overcoming an initial concern raised by the delegate. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. This conclusion was based on inconsistencies and a lack of truthfulness in the evidence provided by both the applicant and the review applicant, which led the Tribunal to doubt the genuineness of their stated intentions. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

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