YU (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether to affirm a decision not to grant a Subclass 600 Visitor visa to the applicant. The central issue was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting family, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of any previous substantive or bridging visas, whether the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The conditions of the proposed visa included not working in Australia, not engaging in study or training for more than three months, not being entitled to a substantive visa while remaining in Australia, and not remaining in Australia after the end of the permitted stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence regarding the applicant's previous visits to Australia. It then considered the financial arrangements for the visit, with the applicant's daughter, who is employed and owns significant assets, offering to cover the applicant's airfare and expenses. The Tribunal also took into account the applicant's personal circumstances, including his ownership of property and his involvement as a shareholder in a company, despite not being in paid employment since October 2018. The applicant stated he did not intend to work or study in Australia and that his family in China needed him, necessitating his return.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose. Consequently, it found that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met and affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.