MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - Sponsored Family stream - close and extended family members in Australia - frequent but reasonable visits - previous compliant family visits - pending Remaining Relative (permanent) visa application - incentive to keep complying with visa conditions - evidence that review applicant can fund expenses - visa applicant has some savings - stable job in home country - obligation to maintain family property in home country - consistent evidence - decision under review remitted

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.612, 600.231

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 10 October 2025 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 9 September 2025. 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 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 they were not satisfied that there was sufficiently strong employment, economic, family or other commitments in Cambodia to be sufficient incentive for the applicant to return there at the end of their proposed visit.
5. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 January 2026 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant.
6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.

1. The issue in this case is whether cl 600.211 is met, which 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, having regard to whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the applicant was subject; whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and any other relevant matter.
2. In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting family in Australia. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
3. 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)).
4. The visa applicant has close and extended family members in Australia. Department records show that he has visited Australia 8 times since 2002. He told the Tribunal that he has always complied with visa conditions.
5. The review applicant told the Tribunal that she has previously sponsored her brother to visit and that he has complied with visa conditions on those occasions. The Tribunal gives this history of previous visits and evidence of compliance with visa conditions positive weight.
6. 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 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.
7. The visa and review applicants were both aware of the visa conditions and both told the Tribunal that the visa applicant intended to comply. As addressed above, the visa applicant has a history of positive visa compliance, and the Tribunal gives positive weight to this history in considering the visa applicant's intention to comply with visa conditions on a future proposed visit.
8. In written pre-hearing submissions, and at hearing, the review applicant told the Tribunal that she has sponsored the visa applicant for a remaining relative visa. She told the Tribunal that the application for that visa has been pending for about 12 years. The review applicant and visa applicant both told the Tribunal that the potential to be granted a permanent visa in future was an incentive for the visa applicant to comply with the conditions for a visitor visa. The Tribunal accepts this and gives it positive weight.
9. Both the visa applicant and the review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant has no requirement or desire to seek work in Australia, or study during a potential visit, as the main reason for the visit was for the visa applicant to spend time with his elderly mother and other family. The review applicant told the Tribunal that she would pay for the visa applicant's travel and living expenses, and the review and visa applicant both told the Tribunal that the visa applicant would bring some savings. The Tribunal was provided evidence of the review applicant's income and savings and is satisfied that she can support the visa applicant for the proposed visit. The visa applicant explained to the Tribunal that he has a stable job and a home in Cambodia, and he needs to return to his job and maintain the home while he waits for the outcome of the permanent visa application. The Tribunal gives these factors some limited positive weight towards demonstrating an intention to comply with all relevant visa conditions.
10. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).
11. The Tribunal notes that the visa applicant's closest family members are all in Australia, with only some extended family members in Cambodia. The Tribunal gives this fact some negative weight in assessing the visa applicant's incentive to return to Cambodia at the end of a proposed visit.
12. The Tribunal has also considered the visa applicant's financial circumstances. The Tribunal was provided documents addressing the visa applicant's employment including an agreement for him to take leave for a visit to Australia. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that he is paid the equivalent of about US$800 per month in cash and that it is not uncommon for wages to be paid in cash. The Tribunal asked whether there is a record of the applicant being paid cash amounts and the visa applicant told the Tribunal that it was not common practice and that he did not have written records of pay, or records of depositing regular amounts to a bank account. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has regular employment and is paid in cash but in the absence of records of regular payments or savings gives this neutral weight towards assessing the strength of his economic ties to Cambodia as incentive to return after a visit to Australia.
13. The Tribunal considered the nature of the visa applicant's property interests in Cambodia. The Tribunal was provided with a document suggesting family ownership of the home where the visa applicant lives. The Tribunal accepts that as the only family member living in Cambodia, the visa applicant has an obligation to maintain the family home. However, the property is not solely owned by the visa applicant, and therefore the Tribunal gives it neutral weight towards assessing the strength of his economic ties to Cambodia as incentive to return after a visit to Australia.
14. The review applicant and the visa applicant both presented as credible witnesses to the Tribunal. Their evidence was consistent and the purpose of the visit reasonable, and consistent with previous visits by the visa applicant.
15. For the above reasons, assessed holistically, 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.