MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - elderly applicant without family support - temporary and bridging visas over 3 years - seeking further stay - extended time with relatives - exceptional circumstances - Australian family provide all accommodation and finances - request for Ministerial Intervention - decision under review affirmed

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 600.215

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 15 March 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 18 December 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 visa applicant is a citizen of the United States, born in March 1936 (currently 89 years of age). She arrived in Australia on 13 August 2022 on an ETA visitor visa. She has remained onshore since then, after being granted multiple visas as follows:
   • 13 August 2022, ETA visa effective till 13 November 2022.
   • 1 November 2022, Bridging visa A, ceased 25 November 2022;
   • 25 November 2022, Subclass 600 Visitor visa granted, ceasing 13 August 2023;
   • 11 August 2023, Bridging Visa A, ceased 19 November 2023;
   • 19 September 2023 Subclass 600 Visitor visa effective till 19 December 2023.
   • Since applying for this visa and seeking review, the applicant has been on a bridging visa (therefore since 18 December 2023.)
4. Therefore, the applicant has been onshore on temporary and bridging visas for more than three years and four months.
5. In the application for the visa, the applicant applied for a visa enabling her to stay in Australia for "up to 6 months", however the "requested end date" appears to have been inappropriately entered as 19 December 2023 (that is, the day after the application date.)
6. The applicant gave as her reason for wanting to extend her stay "to spend Christmas and New Year and more time with my nephew and his wife and children." She gave information in the application that she was born in Syria and was a widow. She described no other members of her family outside Australia and one nephew and one cousin in Australia as contacts, and gave her cousin's details as the person who would be providing her with financial support and accommodation. She provided proof of her cousin's financial situation, namely a bank balance of more than $60,000 as at 15 December 2023.
7. In a supporting statutory declaration, the visa applicant stated that she has been alone since her husband died and came to visit her nephew, cousin and their families. She visited many friends and relatives in Australia and 'her lonely life has changed into a family life, and she felt happy to spend time with her nephew, cousin and their families.' She said they had asked her to stay to celebrate Christmas and New Year so she didn't have to spend them alone.
8. 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 600.215, which includes the following:

(1) If subclause (2) applies - exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of the visa.

(2) This subclause applies if the grant of the visa would result in the applicant being

authorised to stay in Australia as the holder of one or more of the following visas for a

1. As will be noted from the applicant's arrival and visa history described earlier in this statement, because the grant of the visa would result in the applicant being authorised to stay in Australia as the holder of one or more visitor and bridging visas for more than 12 consecutive months, the applicant must therefore establish that there are "exceptional circumstances that exist for the grant of the visa." This is the issue in this review which must be determined.
2. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.215 because they were not satisfied that the there were exceptional circumstances in the applicant's case, and therefore she did not meet cl 600.215.
3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 January 2026 to give evidence and present arguments by video conference using the Microsoft Teams application. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant's nephew Sarkis Joljian and her cousin Kyork Joljian. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Armenian and English languages. The applicant's representative was present during the hearing and made some submissions at the conclusion of the applicant and witnesses' evidence, noted below.
4. At hearing, the visa applicant explained that she lived in California, and did not own her home. She migrated to the United States in 1989. She has no family there. In Australia, she lives with her nephew, (who gave evidence at the hearing) and he and her cousin take care of her. In the US she was alone and cleaned houses to make a living and had no one to rely on at all. When she broke her arm, for example, she had no one there to care for her, and it was very difficult. The applicant gave evidence that her family in Australia take good care of her and she is happy and doing well here. She has bad hips, but otherwise her health is okay. She expressed a desire to stay in Australia where she has support and a family who care for her.
5. The applicant gave evidence that her family in Australia meet all of her accommodation and financial needs. Mr Sarkis Joljian and Mr Kyork Joljian confirmed that they want to continue to care for and provide for the visa applicant, as her only family. Mr Sarkis Joljian gave evidence that he applied for a US visa so he could care for his aunt in the US, and help her return there, but his application was refused in July 2025. He gave evidence that when they were young, the applicant supported and cared for he and his cousin and they feel it is their responsibility to care for her now that she has no one left to do so, apart from them. The applicant and her family members expressed a hope that the Tribunal could assist to allow her to be granted a visa and stay in Australia where they can continue to care for her.
6. After speaking with the applicant and Messrs Joljian, the Tribunal noted that it appeared that it might be difficult for the visa applicant's circumstances to meet the criteria requiring that 'exceptional circumstances' exist for the grant of the visitor visa. The Tribunal noted that the circumstances described appeared to be common and exceptional for elderly persons visiting Australia. The applicant and her family members reiterated that even so, they hope that they can get some assistance to allow her to stay in Australia.
7. The applicant's representative conceded that the applicant's circumstances may not meet the criteria, but suggested that there are strong humanitarian grounds why this aging applicant should not be required to return to the US where she has no home and no family support whatsoever. He suggested that the Tribunal might consider whether it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Minister for possible Ministerial Intervention.

1. The Tribunal has considered the evidence given by the applicant and her witnesses, discussed above. That evidence is accepted. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has no family, established home or community in the United States, and that she is fully supported by her Australian relatives and has a more enjoyable life in Australia. Her health is relatively good, apart from poor hips. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant is happier here than she would be if she returns to the United States, and that her nephew has tried to get a visa to travel with her to the States and assist her there, but has been unable to do so.
2. "Exceptional Circumstances" is not defined in the legislation or in departmental policy. It must therefore be given it's ordinary meaning. The applicant is not cognitively impaired, and the evidence does not suggest that she suffers from any significant physical or mental disability, apart from age related pain from her hips. The evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest that the applicant will experience persecution of any kind in the United States, and though it is clear that she fears that she will be lonely and lack any practical and emotional family support when she returns to the US, such a situation is not reasonably considered out of the ordinary (or exceptional) for aging citizens who live distant from their family. It is also noted that this application is for a visitor visa, not a permanent visa of any kind.
3. The Tribunal considers that the applicant's circumstances cannot reasonably be considered to be 'exceptional'. It is insufficient that she prefers to live in Australia, or that her nephew and cousin want her to remain here so they can continue to care for her as she ages.
4. The Tribunal considers that there are not exceptional circumstances in this case for the grant of the visa. Therefore, the visa applicant does not satisfy cl 600.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and the decision under review will be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Other matters: Request for consideration of referral to the Minister

1. The new guidelines for consideration of Ministerial Intervention were issued by Minister Tony Burke on 4 September 2025. The Tribunal has considered those guidelines. Generally speaking, it would be only in cases where an applicant's circumstances accord with the guidelines issued by the Minister that the Tribunal would consider referring a matter for consideration. Even if a referral request were made, the Tribunal's recommendation is not binding on the department or the Minister.
2. The new guidelines appear to have restricted the types of requests that 'are to be brought to a Minister's attention' in certain ways. They no longer invite consideration of referring a case 'where there are strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to an Australian citizen or an Australian family unit' factors affecting an Australian citizen'. Also no longer included are "compassionate circumstances regarding the age and or health and or psychological state of the person that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to the person." It appears to the Tribunal that the applicant's circumstances were analogous to those types of cases now excluded, and would potentially have previously been of a nature where a referral for consideration of Ministerial intervention might have been appropriate, prior to 17 September 2025.
3. The Tribunal has considered criteria 13 in the new Ministerial Instructions.
4. The applicant is not the parent of an Australian citizen minor child; she is retired and not working in a relevant skilled occupation; and she has never held a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment)(Provisional) visa. There is no evidence that she is the carer of an Australian citizen who is in need of care (and that the person receiving care has no other Australian citizen or permanent resident permanently residing in Australia). Also, the applicant has not had a protection finding of any kind made in her case, and there is no suggestion in this case that the US has refused to allow the applicant to return. She has a valid American passport. None of the other provisions in Part 5 of the Ministerial Instructions apply to the applicant's circumstances.
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal does not consider that it is appropriate to refer the matter for consideration of possible ministerial intervention, because on the information currently before it, the applicant does not meet any of the provisions in criteria 13.

Representative for the Applicant: Dr Talat Abouzaid (MARN: 0323653)