MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - genuinely temporary entrant - husband in home country - financial support from children - children are Australian citizens - previous family visit - complying with visa conditions - lack of English-language proficiency - volatile and poor economic circumstances in home country - access to adequate health care - has to return home to care for husband - decision under review remitted

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.221, 600.222, 600.611

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 11 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 11 November 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 applicant applied for the visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Tourist 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 of the presence of the visa applicant's daughter's in Australia, and the political and economic situation in Myanmar, they were not satisfied the visa applicant had sufficient ties to ensure their return to Myanmar.
5. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 October 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Burmese and English languages.
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 her children in Australia who are Australian citizens. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Tourist stream may be granted: cl 600.221 and cl 600.222.
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 applicant has previously travelled to Australia on a visitor visa in 2019. There is no evidence of non-compliance with the conditions of that previously held visa. The applicant has substantially complied with the previous visa and the Tribunal gives this some weight in favour of the visa applicant genuinely intending to stay temporarily in Australia.
5. 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 600.611 (3)):
   • 8101 - must not work in Australia
   • 8201 - must not engage in study or training in Australia for more than 3 months.
6. The visa applicant is 73 years old and a retired doctor. She lives in a property with a long-term lease to her husband, has some personal savings and receives financial support from her children in Australia. The visa applicant's children intend to pay for her travel and living expenses in Australia and the review applicant demonstrated to the Tribunal that she has sufficient means to do so. Further, the visa applicant told the Tribunal that at her age she does not intend, and has no interest, in seeking to work or study in Australia. The Tribunal also notes that the visa applicant is not a native English speaker and required use of the interpreter during the hearing, suggesting that she would face impediments to working or studying in Australia. On the basis of these matters, combined with the fact that the visa applicant has previously complied with the conditions of a visitor visa, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant intends to comply with the visa conditions.
7. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). The visa applicant's husband will remain in Myanmar during the visa applicant's proposed visit to Australia. The visa applicant met her husband at medical school. They have lived together in their current residence for 27 years. The visa applicant's husband suffers from health issues which make it difficult for him to travel. The review and visa applicants described the arrangements that can be made for the visa applicant's husband to be cared for by a nurse, another personal assistant and a member of the extended family for the period that the visa applicant plans to be absent in Australia. The review and visa applicants told the Tribunal that the visa applicant could only visit Australia for 1 or 2 months because they needed to return to be with their father/husband.
8. The Tribunal puts weight on the circumstance that the visa applicant's husband will remain in Myanmar, and that the visa applicant's visit is only proposed to be for 1 or 2 months due to her husband's health conditions. The Tribunal considers the presence of the visa applicant's husband in Myanmar is strong incentive for her to return to Myanmar at the end of a proposed visit to Australia.
9. The Tribunal asked the review and visa applicant how the security, political and economic situation in Myanmar affects the visa applicant and her husband. The Tribunal was told that they were not significantly affected, due to their age (mainly young people are involved in the conflict), being firmly settled in their long-term home, and receiving regular financial support from family in Australia. The Tribunal notes the volatile situation in Myanmar and the poor economic circumstances. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant and her husband experience a reasonable standard of living in Myanmar, including access to adequate health care, and financial assistance from their children in Australia, and gives this some weight in favour of the visa applicant genuinely intending to stay temporarily in Australia.
10. For the above reasons 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.