Xu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, where the applicant sought to visit family in Australia. The decision under review, which refused the visa, was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involves considering whether the applicant has complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether they intend to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's stated purpose of visiting his sister and her family. It noted the absence of evidence of previous visits to Australia. The Tribunal also examined the applicant's financial capacity and employment history. The applicant's sister stated that she and her husband were not in paid employment but lived with their son, who supported them. She claimed savings of approximately $30,000 and no debts. She also stated that the visa applicant, who was employed as a Sales Manager since 2012 and previously a farmer, owned property and had savings of approximately 280,000 RMB, with no debts. Despite these claimed financial resources, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, finding that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.