Zhu (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Tourist stream). The visa applicant sought to visit their daughter and her family in Australia. The delegate had refused the visa on the grounds that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations, which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and evidence, including oral evidence from the applicant via telephone from China, with the assistance of an interpreter.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211. This assessment involved considering whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous visas or bridging visas held, and whether they intended to comply with the conditions of the subclass 600 visa, such as not working, not studying for more than three months, and departing Australia at the end of their permitted stay. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's previous conduct in Australia raised significant credibility concerns. The applicant had previously entered Australia in 2000 using her sister's passport and visa, and subsequently applied for further visas under her sister's identity in 2002. These applications were refused, and the applicant remained in Australia unlawfully until her departure in August 2014. This history of non-compliance with immigration laws was considered a highly relevant matter under clause 600.211(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's intention to comply with future visa conditions, noting the potential for further breaches given her past behaviour.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, due to her adverse migration history and past non-compliant behaviour.