MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - genuine temporary entrant - previous compliant visit - family commitments in home country - employment in Vietnam - decision under review set aside and remitted

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231, 600.611

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 26 October 2023 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 28 September 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 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. The delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant's incentives to depart Australia outweighed their incentives to remain in Australia and as such the delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
5. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 September 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 Vietnamese and English languages.
6. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.
7. 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 sister. 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 previously been granted visitor visas for Australia. There is no evidence of non-compliance with any substantive visa that she has been granted. The Tribunal weights this in favour of the applicant.
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):
   • 8101 - must not work in Australia (mandatory)
   • 8201 - must not engage in study or training in Australia for more than 3 months (mandatory)
   • 8501 - the holder must maintain adequate arrangements for health insurance while the holder is in Australia (discretionary)
   • 8503 - not entitled to a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while remaining in Australia (discretionary)
   • 8558 - the holder must not stay in Australia for more than 12 months in any period of 18 months (discretionary)
6. Both the review applicant and the visa applicant gave evidence that they were aware of the visa conditions. Both asserted that the visa applicant intended to comply with the conditions. It was also submitted that the proposed short length of time that the visitor wished to stay (2 weeks), and her commitments in Vietnam to her usual employment and care for her mother, were factors supporting her intention to comply with the visa conditions. In the context of these statements and the history of prior visa compliance, 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)).
8. The visa applicant is not married and has no children in Vietnam. The review and visa applicants told the Tribunal that the visa applicant lives with their mother in Vietnam and is their mother's primary carer.
9. The Tribunal was told that visa applicant is employed as an accountant with a cosmetics company. A copy of a document dated 1 December 2020 and purporting to be a contract of employment for the visa applicant was provided to the Tribunal following the hearing, as were documents evidencing bank statements, and participation in social insurance. The documents appear to demonstrate the visa applicant's employment in Vietnam and evidence a regular income stream.
10. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant has a significant family connection in Vietnam being to care for her mother, and that she has regular ongoing employment. The Tribunal gives these matters positive weight in favour of the visa applicant.
11. At the hearing, the review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant had a previous debt for house repairs, which had been paid. When the Tribunal asked the visa applicant whether she had any debts, she told the Tribunal she had a credit card debt (of either 16 or 60 million VND). Documents presented to the Tribunal suggested that the visa applicant had a Credit Card loan and a Personal Instalment loan which had 40 instalment payments remaining and a due date of 4 Dec 2028. The Tribunal observed that the documents suggest that the visa applicant appears to be making regular payment on the Personal Instalment Loan, however it is a significant amount; and it was not disclosed to the Tribunal at hearing.
12. The Tribunal sought further information about the nature and purpose of the loan and whether the visa applicant, has had any issues meeting regular loan repayments, and whether she is under any financial pressure with respect to her total level of debt.
13. The review applicant described the loan as being for home repairs and reiterated her view, supported with further documentation, that the visa applicant had a stable financial position and was able to cover loan repayments and pay for her living expenses. The Tribunal accepts these matters.
14. 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.

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Chris Levan