Xie (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Sponsored Family Stream), made by a visa applicant wishing to visit his daughter and grandchildren in Australia. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning his genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose of his visit.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, having regard to whether he had complied with the conditions of any previous visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The visa applicant sought to visit his daughter, son, son-in-law, and granddaughter, which aligned with the purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted. However, the Tribunal also had to consider the circumstances surrounding the family's presence in Australia and the visa applicant's own circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that as the visa applicant had not previously visited Australia, clause 600.211(a) regarding compliance with previous visa conditions was not applicable. The Tribunal then considered clause 600.211(b), which requires an intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, including not working, not studying for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa other than a protection visa, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay. Crucially, the Tribunal also considered clause 600.211(c), which encompasses all other relevant matters. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that the original delegate had applied a higher degree of scrutiny due to the visa applicant's family links to Australia and the circumstances of their arrival and residence. Despite evidence from the visa applicant's daughter regarding the planned visit, financial capacity, and the visa applicant's employment and savings in China, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.

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.