Zhang (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the decision of the Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The Tribunal was required to consider several factors in determining the applicant's genuine temporary entrant status. These included whether the applicant had substantially complied with the conditions of her last substantive visa, whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the visa applicant and the review applicant regarding the purpose of the visit, specifically whether the applicant's son would accompany her and the applicant's intentions regarding permanent residency in Australia. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's previous visa cancellation due to allegations of threats made against an Australian citizen, and a discrepancy regarding her claimed prior travel to Australia for secondary education.

The Tribunal found that the inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly concerning the applicant's intentions and her incentives to return to China, prevented it from being satisfied that she genuinely intended to remain in Australia on a temporary basis. The Tribunal also expressed concern about the potential influence of the review applicant and the visa applicant's father on her decision-making regarding permanent residency. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded 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.