MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - sponsored family stream - genuinely temporary entrant - employment, assets, girlfriend and family ties in home country - intention to comply with visa conditions - no previous travel outside of home country - review applicant can sufficiently support visa applicant's travel and stay - security bond - compelling or compassionate reasons to travel - to assist sister with children - lives safely in home country - decision under review remitted

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65, 359A

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

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 20 December 2023 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The visa applicant is a 30-year-old male national from Lebanon.
2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 8 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 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 he had not demonstrated sufficiently strong financial, family, employment or other commitments to act as an incentive for his return to Lebanon.
5. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal by videoconference on 5 November 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant by telephone from Lebanon. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages. Both the review applicant and the review applicant made an affirmation that the information they provide to the Tribunal would be truthful.
6. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review however the registered migration agent did not attend the hearing.
7. 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:
   1. 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;
   2. whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and
   3. any other relevant matter.
8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside.

1. The visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting his sister in Australia. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
2. The review applicant is the sister of the visa applicant. On the evidence before the Tribunal, both the review applicant and visa applicant were born in Lebanon and the review applicant has since acquired Australian citizenship. She lives in Victoria with her husband and six children. She is expecting her seventh child which is due by the end of this month.
3. In the hearing, the review applicant said one of her sons is permanently disabled and requires intensive homecare. She said she cares for him at home and until recently, had the additional support provided by a disability carer, however the carer is currently suffering her own medical challenges. Those claims are not in dispute and are supported by medical evidence provided to the Tribunal.
4. The review applicant says she requires urgent family support to help her cope with the pressures of upcoming school holidays with six children and a seventh child to be born soon. The applicants seek the grant of the visitor visa for a period of approximately six weeks to coincide with the Victorian school holidays. The Tribunal understands the school term in Victoria ends on 19 December 2025 and school is expected to resume on 27 January 2026.[1]

Substantial compliance with prior visa conditions?

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. There is no record of the visa applicant ever travelling to Australia previously. At the hearing, the visa applicant said he had never departed Lebanon. There is no record of the visa applicant entering Australia previously. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the visa applicant has never previously held a substantive Australian visa or has any prior Australian travel history to assess.
3. For that reason, the Tribunal applies a neutral weight to this criterion.

Intention to comply with applicable visa conditions

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 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.
2. In the visitor visa application, the visa applicant made many declarations, including that he would comply with his visa conditions.
3. In the hearing, the Tribunal asked the visa applicant whether he intended to work or study in Australia. He replied 'no' to both questions and added that he was only coming to Australia to support his sister. When asked whether he understood he needed to depart before his visa expires and that he would have limited opportunities to apply for any further visas onshore the visa applicant said he understood and would comply. The Tribunal also discussed the operation of a security bond with the visa applicant, and he confirmed he understood that if he failed to comply with the conditions of his visa that his sister would risk losing her bond payment.
4. Additionally, the Tribunal sought oral evidence from the review applicant concerning her understanding of the visa rules and conditions. The review applicant demonstrated a broad understanding of the visa conditions, and the Tribunal took steps to discuss the specifics with her. In response, she said [visa compliance] 'would not be a problem' and added again that she just needed some support in Australia.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant has expressed a positive intention to comply with his visa conditions and affords positive weight to this criterion.

1. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).
2. In this matter, the Tribunal has needed to consider the circumstances of the visa applicant, the review applicant and the relevant country information.

1. The Tribunal has been presented with evidence concerning the visa applicant's employment history. In documentary evidence provided to the Department an employer statement dated 25 November 2023 attests that the visa applicant was employed at a gas station since 2014. In recent documentary evidence provided to the Tribunal dated 27 October 2025 the employer attests the visa applicant has been employed since 2018, which presents on its face as in inconsistency. In oral evidence the visa applicant told the Tribunal he had worked at the gas station since 2014. The review applicant also told the Tribunal he had been employed for around ten years. The Tribunal notes that neither employer statement had been translated by NAATI[2] and for that reason the Tribunal is not inclined to place much weight on the documentary evidence. The review applicant was informed in Tribunal correspondence that all evidence written in a language other than English should be accompanied by a NAATI translation. On the balance of the information before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is prepared to accept the consistent oral evidence (which was provided separately by both the review applicant and the visa applicant) that the visa applicant holds stable employment in a gas station and has held that employment since approximately 2014. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant sources regular income from his employment.
2. With respect to assets in Lebanon that may act as an incentive for return, the visa applicant claims that he owns a parcel of land, a car and a sum of cash (of an amount disclosed to the Tribunal). The Tribunal received a documentary statement to this effect, however notes the document was not NAATI translated and for that reason is not inclined to attribute it significant weight. The Tribunal has looked for other evidence to corroborate those claims. In oral evidence, the visa applicant disclosed that he owned a parcel of land in Lebanon which he currently uses to grow olive trees and that he has a sum of cash consistent with the amount listed in the written declaration. The visa applicant did not mention owning a vehicle in the hearing. The review applicant also provided a Commonwealth Statutory Declaration declared on 31 October 2025 that states that visa applicant owns a parcel of land that he hoped to build on one day. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is also willing to accept the visa applicant owns a small plot of land in Lebanon. The Tribunal considers the plot of land acts as some incentive for the visa applicant to return to Lebanon.
3. The Tribunal acknowledges that owing to the state of the financial system in Lebanon[3] that it is not uncommon for Lebanese citizens to hold their finances in cash rather than bank accounts, and therefore considers it of little utility to request statements from financial institutions as a means of the visa applicant seeking to demonstrate proof of funds. In this case, the review applicant has stated she will financially support her brother's travel to, and stay in, Australia. The review applicant has provided recent financial statements to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal considers she has sufficient funds available to support her brother's proposed short visit to Australia and the Tribunal places some weight on the review applicant's financial statements as a means of demonstrating savings of a quantum sufficient to support her brother's proposed visit to Australia.
4. When asked about family, the visa applicant disclosed he was unmarried and the only son of his family that was not married. He suggested that for that reason, it was easier for him, rather than his siblings to travel to Australia to support his sister. He also said that he has a girlfriend in Lebanon, and that he hopes they will marry in the future. The review applicant separately corroborated that claim in oral evidence. When asked what reasons the visa applicant has to return to Lebanon, the visa applicant referred to his girlfriend. Both the review applicant and the visa applicant separately and consistently named the girlfriend, such that the Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has a girlfriend in Lebanon and has attributed a small amount of weight to her acting as one of the reasons the visa applicant has said he will return to Lebanon. The Tribunal considers the presence of his parents and two brothers in Lebanon means the majority of the visa applicant's family remain in Lebanon.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the visa applicant has some incentives to return to Lebanon, including his work, his land, his remaining family and the prospect he may marry his girlfriend in the future. The Tribunal observes that those reasons need to be viewed considering the country information and balanced with the circumstances of the review applicant.

1. The Tribunal is not bound to apply government guidelines but will usually do so unless there are cogent reasons to depart from policy.[4] In this matter, the Tribunal has considered the relevant migration policy contained within the Procedural Advice Manual and notes that the relevant policy expresses the view that compelling or compassionate reasons to travel (particularly if the decision may have adverse consequences on an Australian citizen or permanent resident)[5] is a factor relevant for consideration.
2. In this matter, the Tribunal considers that the review applicant's personal situation warrants consideration as compassionate circumstances. In oral evidence the review applicant told the Tribunal she is a stay-at-home mother and is supported by her husband, who works as much as he can as a truck driver, although cannot work full-time hours because he is required to take their disabled son to many medical appointments. The review applicant disclosed their family unit is in receipt of some social welfare, but otherwise has limited supports in Australia. When asked if she has a friendship circle, mother's group support, or other government support she replied she does not, and that she does not have time to be social because of her carer responsibilities. Medical evidence presented to the Tribunal (which the Tribunal accepts) indicates that the review applicant's mental health has been declining. She told the Tribunal she has no family in Australia besides her husband, an aunt and uncle, although notes she does not see her aunt or uncle regularly.
3. The review applicant told the Tribunal that she has made applications for both her mother and brother to visit her in Australia for the purposes of offering her support. In oral evidence, she further said that she did not mind which visa was granted, so long as she was granted the ability to have one family member come to Australia to support her. The review applicant suggested it would be preferable if her brother's visa was granted because she has five sons under the age of 12 and suggested that her brother would be better able to occupy her boys for the holidays. The Tribunal notes that the only application for review currently before it is the brother's visitor visa refusal, meaning it can only make a decision in respect of the refusal of her brother's visitor visa.
4. At hearing, the review applicant said that she had previously sponsored her mother to visit Australia in approximately 2014 and that she returned to Lebanon and complied with her visa conditions. The Tribunal made enquiries of the Department who indicated that the review applicant had not previously sponsored any family members. The Tribunal considers it possible that the review applicant's mother has previously travelled to Australia, although potentially as the holder of an unsponsored visitor visa, which may explain the discrepancy in the information between the review applicant and the Department. For that reason, the Tribunal does not attribute any weight to the review applicant's claim that she previously sponsored her mother and that her mother complied with her visa conditions.
5. Per s 359A of the Act, the Tribunal expressed concerns to the review applicant in the hearing that it appeared she required longer-term support, and that it might form the view the brother's proposed entry to Australia may be to act as a longer-term carer, contrary to the grant of the visa. The review applicant responded by saying that the upcoming school holidays are the most problematic for her, because she is due to deliver her baby around that time, and that with her current carer suffering her own medical challenges means she will struggle to occupy and care for her six children over that specific period. She said her life will become easier again once the children return to school in the new year. While the Tribunal stressed that the review applicant needed to make enquiries to obtain longer-term support in Australia, it is willing to accept that the review applicant needs temporary support to coincide with the Victorian school holidays and the birth of her baby. The Tribunal considers the presence of her brother in Australia will assist the review applicant temporarily and is not inconsistent with policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers the review applicant's plea to the Tribunal and her personal circumstances warrant compassionate consideration and the Tribunal places significant weight on her personal circumstances in forming its decision.

1. The country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade suggests that the economic and security situation in Lebanon is very difficult, featuring severe economic depression[6] alongside an uncertain security situation due to conflict in neighbouring Syria, tensions between Hezbollah (which is part of the Lebanese Government) and Israel, terrorist threats from internal and external actors, and, occasionally, communal violence.[7] The Tribunal acknowledges that these factors present cogent reasons why the visa applicant may wish to enter Australia and remain beyond the temporary grant of his visa. The Tribunal also shared current Smart Traveller information with the applicants, noting that Akkar (the home area of the visa applicant) was presently listed as 'Level 4 - 'Do not travel' because of the risk of conflict, air strikes and sporadic violence. [8]
2. The country information was shared with the applicants at the hearing, and they were invited to comment. In response, the review applicant said the visa applicant will not overstay or breach his visa conditions and reiterated that he had various reasons for returning to Lebanon at the conclusion of his visit. The review applicant also said that her mother had previously complied with her visa conditions and despite her needing more support when her mother was here last time, that they elected to abide by the conditions on that prior occasion, and would do so again this time, if the visa was granted.
3. The review applicant referred to Akkar as a 'safe haven' and when the Tribunal questioned her about the use of that expression she explained that her family in Akkar are far from the south and do not experience daily troubles in their lives. In the process of receiving oral evidence new information also emerged, namely that in 2024 the review applicant's husband and two children returned to Lebanon (specifically to Akkar where the visa applicant resides) for a short period to visit family. She said they experienced no security or other issues and returned to Australia safely.
4. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges the DFAT information, including specific security information pertaining to Akkar[9], the Tribunal places greater weight on the review applicant's evidence that her husband and two young children elected to return to Akkar as recently as 2024 and the evidence of the visa applicant who says that he currently lives safely in Akkar and has no restrictions on his movements in his daily life.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal considers that the country information may not reflect the personal or economic circumstances of the visa applicant and that the review applicant's need for the visa applicant to be present for a short period acts a strong driver for why the visa applicant seeks entry to Australia.
6. In conclusion, having considered the visa applicant's personal circumstances and incentives for return, coupled with the country information and the review applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal considers there are other relevant considerations apparent in the specific circumstances of this case that leads the Tribunal to apply positive weight to this criterion.

1. The Tribunal explained the operation of the security bond to the review applicant. She demonstrated some existing knowledge, including a reference to the bond as a form of warranty. The Tribunal is confident the review applicant understands her obligations as sponsor and how the security bond will operate. When asked, the review applicant said she would be prepared to lodge a bond of up to AUD10,000, if requested to do so.

1. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, including the compassionate circumstances surrounding the review applicant' current situation set out above, 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: Ms Samia Fayad (MARN: 0964241)

[1] Victorian Government, 'School term dates and holidays in Victoria' (online) (accessed 6 November 2025).

[2] Administrative Review Tribunal, (Common Procedures) Practice Direction 2024, (15 October 2025) 6.2 (c).

[3] International Bar Association, 'Lebanon's beleaguered banking sector' (online, 18 July 2022)

[4] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179 (21 November 1979).

[5] Department of Home Affairs, Procedural Advice Manual, 3.5.1.3 (per 600.211(c)).

[6] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report Lebanon (26 June 2023) 9 [2.7].

[8] Australian Government, 'Lebanon', SmartTraveller.gov.au, (online, updated 22 September 2025) .