Wife wanted to visit her husband in Australia temporarily…
Migration Review Tribunal remitted the Department’s Decision in relation to a Visitor (Class FA) Visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor)
FACTS
The Department of Immigration refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay only temporarily in Australia.
The sponsor claimed that the applicant was his wife of four years who had visited on two previous occasions and that she had complied with the conditions of the visas on each of the occasions.
The sponsor stated that he had ill health and wanted his wife to care for him and that she would comply with all the conditions. The sponsor claimed that he did not want to breach the conditions of the visa or do something unlawful that would affect their future relationship. In addition he and the applicant had not decided where they wished to live permanently as the applicant had strong family, employment and economic ties to Europe.
HEARING
The Migration Review Tribunal noted that the sponsor had appeared before the Tribunal in the past for a refusal of a sponsored family visitor visa which was similarly remitted.
The Tribunal found that the claims were similar and that the applicant had complied with the conditions of the visa and other visas which she had been granted.
The Tribunal found that the applicant intended to comply with the conditions of the visa as she was not enrolled in or intended to enrol in a course, or intended to work while in Australia, and that she would not be entitled to a substantive visa other than a protection visa.
The Tribunal referred to departmental policy for applicants in spousal relationships which stated that a visitor visa should not be refused on the possible eventual intention of the applicant to stay permanently in Australia. It also noted that the imposition of condition 8503 (No Further Stay) would mitigate concerns on the applicant seeking to stay permanently. The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant family, employment and economic ties in Europe.
DECISION
The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of cl.600.211 and the Tribunal remitted the application to the department to consider the remaining criteria for the grant of the visa.