MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - genuine temporary entrant - access to financial resources - balance of family in Vietnam - employment and financial commitments in home country - 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, 600.224, 600.231

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 5 April 2024 to refuse to grant the primary and secondary visa applicants a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 22 March 2024. 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 applicants applied for the visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Sponsored 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 primary visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211 because the delegate found that her income in Vietnam was limited and therefore not considered significant in the overall economic conditions of the cost of living in Vietnam and not a strong incentive to depart Australia. In addition, the delegate was not satisfied that the funds in the primary visa applicant's bank account were genuinely the primary visa applicant's or that she had the means to accumulate such funds. The delegate also found that the limited evidence of previous travel and the presence of close family members in Australia would act as an encouragement for the primary visa applicant to remain in Australia.
5. On 8 April 2024, the review applicant lodged an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The review applicant is the primary visa applicant's sister. The secondary visa applicant is the primary visa applicant's 15 year old son and the review applicant's nephew.
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 primary visa applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 September 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. An interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages was available to provide assistance in the Tribunal hearing. The applicants were self-represented at the hearing and each of the review applicant and the primary visa applicant gave evidence separately during the hearing. The Tribunal did not require the secondary visa applicant to give evidence.
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 13 and 14 October 2025 pursuant to leave of the Tribunal), country information dated February 2025 on Vietnam prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the oral evidence at the hearing before the Tribunal on 30 September 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 40 year old man who lives in Sale, Victoria. He was born in Vietnam and has been granted Australian citizenship. The review applicant's wife was granted a Regional Employer Nomination Visa subclass 187 on 3 September 2019.
2. The review applicant's oral evidence given at the hearing was that he and his wife had three children including a new baby. He was self-employed and owned and operated two restaurants and a café, with another tapas restaurant due to open in about a month. His evidence was that one of the restaurants he owned was on Raymond Street in Sale, Victoria. Opposite that, on the same road in Sale, the review applicant owned his cafe. The other restaurant that the review applicant owned is in Traralgon in Victoria. The review applicant provided the names and addresses of the two restaurants and the café, as well as the tapas restaurant soon to open in Sale. The review applicant said that he employed about 35-40 staff at these restaurants and the café.
3. The review applicant said that he had been operating his Sale restaurant for over 5 years, his Sale café for over 3 years and the Traralgon restaurant for about 1 year. He said his gross annual income from his three businesses was about $400,000. The review applicant said that his wife previously worked for a local government council but now works in the review applicant's restaurants and looks after their children and new baby.
4. The review applicant's filed documents included a Commonwealth Bank of Australia bank account statement showing savings of $74,950.49 as at 19 March 2024, a CBA bank account statement showing savings of $79,800.49 as at 5 April 2024 as well as a CBA bank account statement for his wife showing savings of $7,231.23 as at 20 March 2024.
5. The review applicant provided a Wellington Shire Council Notice of Valuation dated 30 July 2021 in respect of his residential property in Sale, Victoria, showing a capital improved value (as at January 2021) of $375,000. These documents included a letter from Wellington Shire Council showing the review applicant and his wife as owners of the residential property. The review applicant said that he and his wife had a mortgage of $240,000 on their home. He said that the valuation was a council valuation and so therefore was below market value. He said that otherwise he had a mortgage of $470,000 on an investment property in Sale valued at about $520,000.
6. The review applicant said that he had only his wife and 3 children in Australia and the remainder of his family were in Vietnam. These family members consisted of the review applicant's mother, sister (the primary visa applicant), his sister's two children, her husband, 11 aunts and uncles, and cousins. The review applicant said he had sponsored 3 of his employees for visas and that all had complied with their visa conditions.
7. The primary visa applicant is a 41 year old woman who is the review applicant's sister. Her oral evidence was that she lives with her husband and two children in Vietnam and cares for her elderly mother. The primary visa applicant has been the deputy principal of Tay Trach Lower Secondary School since 2019. This was supported by a document entitled 'List of Officers and Employees Receiving Work Tour Expenses' dated 1 October 2025 as well as a document entitled 'Payment Table of Salary and Salary Allowances, Salary Deductions' dated October 2025, both provided by the primary visa applicant. The latter of these documents showed a monthly gross income of 14,221,350 Vietnamese Dong and a monthly net income of 13,041,375 Vietnamese Dong. The document showed that this translated to a monthly net income of AUD$749.36.
8. The submitted documents also included a letter dated 5 November 2019 on the letterhead of the People's Committee of Bo Trach District stating that it was a 'decision' on 'appointing school manager' pursuant to which the primary visa applicant was appointed to the role of vice principal of Tay Trach Lower Secondary School. The primary visa applicant said that she had worked in the role of a teacher since 2012.
9. The primary visa applicant said that her husband had worked for the Branch Office of the Registration for the Use of Land for about 5 years until 2023, since which he has worked as a survey engineer for Thanh-Tuan Pty Limited. The filed documents included a document dated September 2025 entitled 'Salary Payment Table' on the letterhead of Thanh Tuan Consulting Service Company Limited, which showed the primary visa applicant's husband as a 'Technical Head' with a monthly income of 24,150,000 Vietnamese Dong.
10. The primary visa applicant provided a Certificate of Land Use dated 19 October 2021 showing that she and her husband owned the house on that land. She provided a further Certificate of Right to Use Land and Other Property on that Land dated 29 August 2025 naming her as the owner of the house on the land and user of the property. The primary visa applicant said that the Certificates of Land Use demonstrated not only that she owned the houses but also had ongoing or permanent use of the land. The primary visa applicant provided a written statement saying that the property was 160 square metres and valued at about 1.2 billion Vietnamese Dong, or AUD$69,003. The primary visa applicant said that she has a loan on the investment property of about 300 million Vietnamese Dong.
11. The documents included bank statements from Agribank in Vietnam in the primary visa applicant's husband's name (for the same bank account) showing a balance of 250 million Vietnamese Dong as at 14 October 2024, a balance of 400 million Vietnamese Dong as at 1 April 2025 and thereafter a balance again of 400 million Vietnamese Dong as at 14 October 2025. The documents also included a bank statement from Agribank in the primary visa applicant's name showing a bank balance as at 14 March 2024 of 103,472,704 Vietnamese Dong.
12. Both the primary visa applicant and the review applicant said that neither the primary visa applicant nor her children have any fear or concern about returning to Vietnam if they came to Australia. The primary visa applicant said that she had never travelled outside Vietnam.
13. The Tribunal accepts the evidence above, which was genuinely given by each of the review applicant and the primary visa applicant separately, as well as being corroborated by the documents described above. Each of the applicants also separately corroborated each other's evidence. In relation to the review applicant's evidence in respect of three employees that he had sponsored and their compliance with their visa conditions, the Tribunal is unable to accept this evidence given there is no documentary evidence to support it.

1. In the present case, at the date of the visa application in March 2024, the visa applicant said that she and her son sought the visa for the purposes of visiting her brother and her brother's family, and to tour and visit parts of Victoria. The review applicant and primary visa applicant said again in the hearing that this was the intended purpose of the visit and that the primary visa applicant intended to visit for about 3-6 weeks.
2. Both applicants said that the primary visa applicant and her son would stay with the review applicant and the review applicant's family during the intended visit. Both applicants also said that the primary review applicant and her son intended to visit Australia in about June or July 2026, during school holidays in Vietnam, which is when the primary review applicant could take leave from work and her son would be on school holidays.
3. The purpose of the visa applicant's visit is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Tourist stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
4. 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 neither the primary nor secondary visa applicants have ever travelled outside of Vietnam before. The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that the visa applicants are unable to demonstrate any previous visa compliance.

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 Tourist stream) would be subject are as follows (cl 600.224):
   • 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 primary visa applicant said that she was aware of and intended to comply with each of the above conditions. She was able to reasonably accurately describe the conditions and said that neither she nor her son intended to work or study in Australia if they were granted a Visitor visa, and would leave Australia and return to Vietnam within 3 months. In answer to the Tribunal's question during the hearing as to whether she intended to work or study in Australia the primary visa applicant said 'no, never'.
3. The review applicant also said that the primary visa applicant and her son intended to comply with the above conditions and was also reasonably accurately able to describe them.
4. Both applicants said that the primary visa applicant and her son have incentives to return to Vietnam in the form of financial (for the primary visa applicant) and family ties to and obligations in Vietnam (discussed below). When the Tribunal asked the review applicant what his response would be if his sister attempted to remain in Australia if she visited, he said that he 'would not agree with that because I have a retired mum at home [in Vietnam] and I need someone to take care of her. I would not be happy with that, if [my sister] wants to stay here.'
5. 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 primary visa applicant has financial ties to Vietnam in the form of a residential property and an investment property. While the primary visa applicant has a loan on the investment property in the sum of about 300 million Vietnamese Dong, the value of the investment property is approximately 1.2 billon Vietnamese Dong, or about AUD$69,003.
2. The primary visa applicant in addition has her husband and younger child at home in Vietnam, to whom she intends to return, and cares for her elderly mother in Vietnam. She has her extended family in Vietnam. Both the review applicant and the primary visa applicant gave this evidence independently of each other.
3. The primary visa applicant has been the deputy principal of a secondary school in Vietnam since 2019 and has been a teacher since 2012. In her current role she earns a monthly net income of 13,041,375 Vietnamese Dong which equates to a net monthly income of about AUD$749.36. The primary visa applicant's husband earns a gross monthly income of 24,150,000 Vietnamese Dong as a survey engineer. Both the primary visa applicant and her husband have significant funds in the bank in Vietnam.
4. The Tribunal has accepted this evidence above.
5. The Tribunal accepts that the primary visa applicant has strong family and financial ties to and obligations in Vietnam, and a strong incentive to leave Australia and return to Vietnam, particularly given her husband and younger child are there. This was supported by the oral evidence given by both applicants at the hearing as well as by the documentary evidence described above. The Tribunal also accepts that the secondary primary applicant has an incentive to leave Australia and return to Vietnam at the end of any visit, given his mother will return and he has his father, brother and extended family to return to in Vietnam.

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 primary and secondary visa applicants do not intend to work or study in Australia and intend to return to Vietnam at the end of any permitted stay in Australia.
2. The review applicant said that he was willing to pay a security bond in respect of his sister and her son and that they would stay with him while in Australia. Both the review applicant and the primary visa applicant said that they understood that the review applicant could lose his security bond if the visa applicants did not comply with the visa conditions.
3. The primary visa applicant said that she intended to bring the equivalent of about AUD$2000 with her to Australia and would pay for her own airfares and expenses (and those of her son) with assistance from her brother.

1. As stated above, the primary and secondary visa applicants have never travelled outside Vietnam. The Tribunal has had regard to the absence of any evidence of the visa applicants having previous visa condition compliance.

1. There is no particular report or profile information available for the primary or secondary visa applicants, or the review applicant. The primary visa applicant said that she had experienced no problems with the police or authorities in Vietnam, saying 'certainly not' when asked this question. Her brother independently corroborated this evidence.
2. The primary visa applicant said that neither she nor her son had any fear or concern about returning to Vietnam, which was again corroborated by her brother. Both the visa applicant and the review applicant's evidence was that the visa applicant had not been impacted by the economic situation in Vietnam. In this respect, the primary visa applicant's evidence was that she and her family had not been impacted by any economic situation in Vietnam because she earned a government salary and she has her investment property.
3. During the hearing, the Tribunal read paragraph 2.18 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information on Vietnam dated February 2025 and asked the primary visa applicant for her comment. She that those who are affected in Vietnam are those who have issues economically but that there is no such issue for her family in Vietnam.
4. 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 primary and secondary visa applicants have a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of a visit with the review applicant and his wife and children, as well as exploring and visiting the surrounds in Victoria.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the primary visa applicant has significant financial ties and assets in Vietnam, as well as her younger child and husband to return to in Vietnam, as well her elderly mother to care for. The Tribunal accepts that she has a well paid secure and senior job to return to and significant savings in Vietnam. This is all corroborated by the filed material described above.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the primary visa applicant has both financial and family ties in Vietnam. The primary and secondary visa applicants are proposing to travel together to Australia for a short period to visit the primary visa applicant's brother and his family for the purposes described above.
4. The review applicant and primary 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 primary and secondary visa applicants to comply with the visa conditions, given non-compliance may affect visits to Australia of other family members in the future.
5. In addition, the review applicant stated that he was willing to pay a security bond. Both applicants said that they understood that the review applicant could lose this bond if the primary and/or secondary visa applicant failed to comply with the visa conditions.
6. The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant has the means of contributing financially to the primary and secondary visa applicants' expenses if they visit Australia and accepts that the visa applicants have the means to financially support themselves during the intended visit.
7. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicants' strong ties to Vietnam and other personal circumstances described above constitute a sufficient incentive to return to Vietnam at the end of the visit to Australia.
8. For the above reasons, while the visa applicants have no travel history outside Vietnam to demonstrate previous visa condition compliance, on balance the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants' strong family ties in particular to Vietnam (in the form of the primary visa applicant's younger child and husband) constitute a significant and strong incentive to return to Vietnam. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants genuinely intend 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.

[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).