Zabadi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream), made by the father of an Australian citizen. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, as required by clause 600.211 of the relevant regulations. This assessment involved considering the applicant's past compliance with visa conditions, his intention to comply with the conditions of the proposed visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the genuine temporary entrant requirement. This involved assessing whether he had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and considering all other relevant factors. The visa applicant had not previously travelled to Australia but had been refused Visitor visas on two prior occasions. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including his age, his inability to speak English, and the presence of his children and grandchildren in Australia, as well as his business interests and financial resources in Lebanon.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the visa applicant had a furniture business of approximately 35 years' standing, with two factories and savings. It also acknowledged that the applicant's mother had previously visited Australia on a Tourist visa and departed on the day of expiry, and that his younger brother had also visited Australia and departed within the visa period. The Tribunal placed significant weight on the applicant's age and limited English proficiency, concluding that these factors, along with the support of his family in Australia, indicated he would comply with visa conditions such as not working or studying. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting his children and grandchildren.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211.