MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - genuine temporary entrant - property ownership in India - wedding arrangements in home country - previous compliant visits to other countries - family ties and obligations in India - offer of a security bond - decision under review set aside and remitted

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231, 600.612

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 15 January 2024 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 25 October 2023. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different streams. In this case the visa applicant applied for the visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Sponsored Family stream.
3. The criteria for a Subclass 600 visa are set out in Part 600 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl 600.211, which requires the visa applicant to satisfy the Minister that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211 because the delegate found that the visa applicant had not demonstrated that he had sufficiently strong personal, economic, financial, family, employment or other commitments that would be an incentive for him to depart Australia at the end of his proposed visit.
5. On 21 March 2024, the review applicant lodged an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The review applicant is the visa applicant's sister.
6. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 (including this application) are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
7. The review applicant and visa applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 October 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. An interpreter in the Indian and English languages was available to provide assistance in the Tribunal hearing. The applicants were represented at the hearing and each gave evidence separately during the hearing.
8. In making this decision, the Tribunal has considered the documents provided by the applicants to both the Department and the Tribunal (including most recently on 9 October 2025), country information dated September 2023 on India prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the oral evidence at the hearing before the Tribunal on 10 October 2025.
9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be set aside and the matter ought be remitted to the Department for reconsideration on the basis that the visa applicant meets cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

1. The issue in this case is whether cl 600.211 is met. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
2. The Tribunal is to have regard to whether the visa applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the visa applicant was subject. The Tribunal is also to have regard to whether the visa applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the subclass 600 visa would be subject and any other relevant matter.

1. The review applicant is a 36 year old woman who lives in Boronia Heights, Queensland. She was born in India and in December 2024 was granted Australian citizenship, demonstrated by a citizenship certificate filed with the Tribunal on 9 October 2025.
2. The review applicant's oral evidence given at the hearing was that she was married with a daughter who will turn 2 in December 2025. The review applicant has been a high school teacher for almost 4 years and is employed in that capacity by Beaudesert State High School. Her earnings are $4474.20 gross per fortnight. Her income is corroborated by the review applicant's pay advices dated 5 October 2025 and 24 September 2023. The review applicant also provided an employment contract dated 17 September 2021 showing that she was previously employed at Toolooa State High School.
3. The review applicant in addition provided Commonwealth Bank of Australia bank statements showing she has $30,513.82 in savings as at 8 October 2025 and $35,000.61 as at 21 October 2023. The review applicant's evidence was that her husband worked in the construction industry and earned about $90,000 per annum. She said that she and her husband owned two cars, were saving to buy a house and had no debts.
4. The review applicant said that she had no other family in Australia aside from her husband and her baby daughter. Her family in India consists of her mother, her brother (the visa applicant) and each of her parents' siblings. Her father passed away in 2024. Her mother has 5 siblings in India, each of whom have children and each of their children have children. The review applicant's father (now deceased) has two siblings in India, each of whom have children and they have children. The review applicant said that her family in India was very close and grew up with her now adult cousins.
5. The review applicant's mother is currently staying with the review applicant in Australia and has done so since December 2024, since the review applicant's daughter's first birthday, having received an extension of her visa to stay for 12 months. The review applicant's mother intends to leave Australia and return to India on 1 December 2025. The review applicant's mother has visited Australia on one other occasion, from December 2023 for just under 3 months, when the review applicant was having her daughter. The review applicant said that she sponsored her mother for the Visitor visa and her mother has complied with the visa conditions. The review applicant has not sponsored anyone else for a visa.
6. The visa applicant is a 34 year old man who is the review applicant's brother. His oral evidence (corroborated by his sister) was that he has worked for Blue Wing Travels (based in India) since about April 2024, which is demonstrated by a letter of appointment dated 15 March 2024. A chartered accountant's statement dated 8 October 2025 demonstrated that he earned the equivalent of AUD$19,504 per annum in this role. Before that, the visa applicant worked for Royal Enterprises as a manager from September 2010 in which role he earned the equivalent of AUD$19,965 per annum, demonstrated by a letter from Royal Enterprises dated 18 October 2023 and a chartered accountant statement dated 20 October 2023.
7. The visa applicant's chartered accountant's statement dated 8 October 2025 (as well as property valuations) demonstrated also that the visa applicant owned a residential property in India, his father had owned an agricultural property in India and his mother owned 3 residential properties in India, all of which together were valued at the equivalent of about AUD$1.332 million. The visa applicant said that he had since inherited the agricultural property from his father after his father had passed away and would also inherit his mother's 3 residential properties. The visa applicant's SBI bank account statement for the period ending 8 October 2025 showed that the visa applicant had savings of 1,412,239.95 Indian Rupees (closing balance on final page). The visa applicant's SBI bank account statement for the period ending 18 July 2024 showed that the visa applicant had savings of 1,167,084.72 Indian Rupees as at 9 October 2023.
8. The visa applicant was not yet married and had no children but intended to marry a woman in India in about November or December 2026 and to live with her there, although the date of the wedding was yet to be finalised and arranged between his family and his intended wife's family. The visa applicant's evidence (corroborated by his sister) was that he cared for his elderly mother, which in Indian culture was the son's role. Both applicants said that the visa applicant assisted in Sikh temple events. The visa applicant said that, in addition to caring for his own agricultural land, he also assisted with the care of his cousin's agricultural land. The visa applicant's evidence given on a number of occasions (and corroborated by his sister) was that he was 'well-settled' in India.
9. The visa applicant's evidence is that he had travelled outside India twice previously, once to the Netherlands in 2019, and once to Canada in December 2024. The visa applicant's evidence was that he currently remained lawfully in Canada, having applied for an extension of his visa in Canada to support his cousin during her pregnancy. The visa applicant's evidence was that during this time he had worked remotely for his employer and continued to attend meetings and perform duties. The visa applicant's evidence was that he had complied with the visa conditions on his visit to the Netherlands and to Canada. The visa applicant said he intended to leave Canada in late October 2025, return to India, and intended to visit Australia for a maximum of 2.5 weeks in late December 2025.
10. The Tribunal accepts the evidence above, which was genuinely given by each of the review applicant and the visa applicant separately, as well as being corroborated by the documents described above. In relation to the evidence in respect of the visa applicant's compliance with his visa conditions when travelling to the Netherlands and to Canada, the Tribunal is willing to accept this evidence given there is no evidence before the Tribunal of non-compliance. There is similarly no evidence before the Tribunal of the applicants' mother having failed to comply with her visa conditions in her travel on two occasions to Australia. On that basis the Tribunal is also willing to accept the evidence in respect of the applicants' mother's visa condition compliance.

1. In the present case, at the date of the visa application in October 2023, the visa applicant said that he sought the visa for the purposes of visiting his sister and his sister's family, and to support his sister emotionally and culturally immediately following the birth of his sister's first child. The visa applicant initially sought to visit for about 2 weeks in January 2024.
2. In a written statement and during the hearing, the visa applicant reiterated that the purpose of his visit was to stay with his sister and sister's family and to attend his niece's second birthday in December 2025, as well as to perform cultural ceremonies. The visa applicant said that he planned to visit for a maximum of 2.5 weeks during the December 2025 end of year holiday season, because this was the period he could take leave from work.
3. This was independently corroborated by the review applicant, who said that she wanted the visa applicant to visit with her for her daughter's second birthday as well as to perform cultural rituals ordinarily performed by her father, who had now passed. The primary ritual that the review applicant said her brother would help perform was a Lohri celebration for her baby daughter. Both applicants said that the visa applicant would stay with the review applicant and the review applicant's husband during the intended visit.
4. The purpose of the visa applicant's visit is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
5. The Tribunal accepts the evidence above, which was genuinely given.

Compliance with conditions of last substantive visa

1. In considering whether a visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for this purpose, the Tribunal must consider whether he or she has complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa held, or any subsequent bridging visa (cl 600.211(a)).
2. The applicants' evidence, which the Tribunal has accepted, was that he has travelled outside India in the past (to Canada and to the Netherlands) and complied with the visa conditions on those occasions. The Tribunal has given this some weight, although recognising that the visa conditions applicable to the visa applicant's travel to Canada and to the Netherlands are not identical or necessarily comparable to the conditions relevant to a Visitor visa in the Sponsored Family stream (described below).

1. The Tribunal must also consider whether the visa applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject (cl 600.211(b)). The conditions to which a visa in the circumstances of this case (in the Sponsored Family stream) would be subject are as follows (cl 600.612):
   • 8101 - must not work in Australia
   • 8201 - must not engage in study or training in Australia for more than 3 months
   • 8503 - not entitled to a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while remaining in Australia
   • 8531 - must not remain in Australia after end of permitted stay.
2. During the hearing the visa applicant said that he was aware of and intended to comply with each of the above conditions. He was able to reasonably accurately describe the conditions.
3. The review applicant also said that the visa applicant intended to comply with the above conditions and was also reasonably accurately able to describe them. Both applicants said that the visa applicant has incentives to return to India in the form of financial and family ties to and obligations in India (discussed below). When the Tribunal asked the review applicant what her response would be if her brother attempted to remain in Australia, she said she would 'make him go back' to India.
4. The Tribunal accepts the above evidence which, again, was genuinely given.

1. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). The Department of Home Affairs policy[1] provides that, in establishing whether 600.211(c) is satisfied, relevant consideration of any other matter may include, but is not limited to personal circumstances, credibility, purpose and period of stay, previous immigration/travel history and intel reports and profile. The Tribunal addresses these matters below.

1. As described above, the visa applicant has significant financial ties to India in the form of a residential property and an agricultural property. In combination with his mother's 3 residential properties (which the visa applicant will inherit), the value of the 5 properties combined is estimated to be over AUD$1.3 million. The visa applicant in addition intends to marry an Indian woman in India in late 2026 and to live with her there. He cares for and spends time with his mother and in addition performs duties in a Sikh temple.
2. He looks after his own agricultural property as well as another family member's land. He has a well paid job, significant savings in his SBI bank account and is 'well-settled' in India. The visa applicant has leave planned from his employment over the end of year break in late December for the 2.5 week duration of his intended visit.
3. The Tribunal has accepted this evidence above.
4. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has strong family and financial ties to and obligations in India, and a strong incentive to leave Australia and return to India. This was supported by the oral evidence given by both applicants at the hearing as well as by the documentary evidence described above.

1. The applicants presented as credible witnesses throughout the hearing and gave evidence consistent with the documents they provided and consistent with each other's evidence.

1. The purpose and duration of the proposed visit is addressed above. In addition, both applicants said that the visa applicant did not intend to work or study, or marry, in Australia and intended to return to India at the end of any permitted stay in Australia. In answer to the question whether he would work or study in Australia the visa applicant said 'absolutely not, I'm well-settled in India.'
2. The review applicant said that she was willing to pay a security bond in respect of her brother and that her brother would stay with her while here. The visa applicant said that he intended to bring the equivalent of about AUD$4000 to $5000 with him to Australia and would pay for his own airfares and expenses.

1. As stated above, the visa applicant has travelled twice outside India, once to the Netherlands in 2019, and once to Canada in December 2024. The Tribunal recognises that the visa applicant remains in Canada now, almost 11 months later, but accepts that he has remained in Canada lawfully, applied for an extension of his visa to assist his pregnant cousin and intends to depart Canada in late October 2025.
2. The Tribunal has accepted the visa applicant's evidence that he has complied with his visa conditions on the two occasions that he has travelled outside India. In addition, the Tribunal has accepted the review applicant's evidence that her mother has travelled to Australia on two occasions (and is currently in Australia until 1 December 2025) and complied with her visa conditions on each occasion. As stated above, the Tribunal gives some weight to this.

1. There is no particular report or profile information available for the visa applicant or review applicant. The visa applicant said that he had experienced no problems generally in India and that he had no fear of returning to India nor concern about doing so. This was corroborated by the review applicant. Both the visa applicant and the review applicant's evidence was that the visa applicant had not been impacted by the economic situation in India. In this respect, the visa applicant's evidence was that he had a well paid job and again that he was 'well-settled'.
2. The Tribunal accepts the above evidence, which both applicants corroborated and which is corroborated by the applicants' documentary evidence.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of a visit with his sister and his sister's family, as well as attending his niece's second birthday in December and participating in cultural events.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has significant financial ties and assets in India, as well as his intended wife and intended wedding to return to in India, as well his mother to care for. The Tribunal accepts that he has a well paid job to return to and significant savings in India. This is all corroborated by the filed material described above.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has both financial and family ties in India. The visa applicant is proposing to travel on his own to Australia for a short period to visit his sister and sister's family for the purposes described above.
4. The review applicant and visa applicant demonstrated during the hearing that they were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with the visa conditions. The Tribunal considers that this awareness will be a strong incentive for the visa applicant to comply with the visa conditions, given non-compliance may affect visits to Australia of other family members in the future (including future visits by the applicants' mother).
5. In addition, the review applicant stated that she was willing to pay a security bond. Both applicants said that they understood that the review applicant could lose this bond if the visa applicant failed to comply with his visa conditions.
6. The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant has the means of contributing financially to the visa applicant's expenses if he visits Australia and accepts that the visa applicant has the means to financially support himself during the intended visit.
7. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant's strong ties to India and other personal circumstances described above constitute a sufficient incentive to return to India at the end of the visit to Australia.
8. For the above reasons, while the visa applicant has no travel history to Australia to demonstrate previous Australian visa condition compliance, the Tribunal has had regard to the visa applicant's visa condition compliance when travelling to the Netherlands and Canada, as well as the applicants' mother's visa condition compliance on the trips to Australia. On balance the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, and finds that the requirements of cl 600.211 are met.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with an order that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:
   • cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Representative for the Applicant: Mandeep Singh, Bajway Immigration Consultants

[1] POLICY - MIGRATION REGULATIONS - SCHEDULES - [Sch2Visa600] Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa - Schedule 2 Visa Criteria - Genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia - clause 600.211 - Any other relevant matter - paragraph 600.211(c).