1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 14 July 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 31 May 2023. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with several 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 in the delegate's view the visa applicant's incentives to return to India were outweighed by the incentives they have to remain in Australia.
5. The Tribunal received a review application from the visa applicant's sponsoring family member (the review applicant) on 15 August 2023.
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 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
7. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 April 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the review applicant's husband. The Tribunal hearing commenced with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages. The visa applicant was not present on 29 April 2025 and the interpreter was dismissed early in the hearing with concurrence of the review applicant and witness who were satisfied they could understand and communicate with the Tribunal in English. The review applicant and visa applicant appeared at a further hearing of the Tribunal on 27 May 2025. That hearing was also conducted with the assistance of an in interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
8. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative did not appear at the hearings.
9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

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 his sister and her family. Evidence was provided from the review applicant and visa applicant which confirmed this. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.

1. In considering whether a visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for this purpose, the Tribunal must consider whether they have complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa held, or any subsequent bridging visa (cl 600.211(a)).
2. The visa applicant has previously had visa applications to Australia refused, but there is no evidence of non-compliance with a visa for the Tribunal to consider. The Tribunal therefore gives this factor no weight.

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.

1. The review applicant, visa applicant and witness each said that there was no intention for the visa applicant to work or study in Australia. The review applicant and witness gave forthright evidence of the requirement for all visitors they sponsor to comply with visa requirements, describing that they rely on regular visits from extended family in India for well-being and psychological support, including from their parents (grandparents to their children) who when they visit help to care for their children which is greatly appreciated.
2. The review applicant and witness said that the visa applicant was aware of the visa conditions, and they believed he intends to comply with them as he must return to manage his farm in India after the visit. The Tribunal notes evidence that the review applicant and witness have sponsored other visitors with the same visa conditions.

The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant has advised the visa applicant of the visa conditions, and that the visa applicant is aware of the visa conditions. The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant and witness have incentive to seek to ensure the visa applicant complies with the visa conditions so as not to jeopardise their sponsorship of other family members. The Tribunal gives this positive weight.

1. The visa applicant gave evidence that he understood the conditions of the visa, that he had to return to manage the farm, and the effect that non-compliance would have on the ability of his sister to sponsor other visitors to Australia.

1. The Tribunal has also considered other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).

1. The visa applicant is a farmer. He is the only son in the family, and as his father has aged, the visa applicant has taken on responsibility for continuing the family farming tradition. Documentary evidence before the Tribunal supports the transfer of interests in farming land along familial lines. Oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal is that the visa applicant grows grain and vegetables which are sold at market and runs some dairy cattle. These are relatively small business interests, but they appear to be legitimate and of going concern. Evidence suggests that it is intended that the farming interests will provide sufficient support for the visa applicant and his family in the future, and the Tribunal notes evidence from the witness that the visa applicant has been responsible for diversification with dairy cattle. This demonstrates the visa applicant's interest in ensuring continuing viability of his farming operations. The review applicant and visa applicant provided evidence that the visa applicant employs some labourers and that during any absence for a permitted stay in Australia, it is intended that other family members, who have a farm nearby, will assist with managing his farm. This was confirmed by the visa applicant. The review applicant said that the visa applicant can only stay in Australia for up to three months because he must return to look after the farm. The visa applicant claimed he only intended to stay for one month as he needed to return to India for the farm.
2. The Tribunal notes the relatively unskilled nature of the visa applicant's occupation and the family farming history. The Tribunal accepts the income producing nature of the farms but also notes that the income is modest (by Australian standards) and that farming income can be unpredictable and influenced by climate and other factors affecting production. The Tribunal also notes the family agricultural history and the evidence that extended family members who are also engaged in agriculture, and limited additional labour, can manage the farm if the visa applicant is absent. The Tribunal assesses the visa applicant's commitment to his agricultural interests in India is positive but places low weight on it in circumstances where there is evidence that other extended family can take this on the responsibility. The Tribunal also places low weight on the visa applicant's income earning capacity in India as supporting his intention to comply with visa conditions, in circumstances where similar agricultural or other unskilled labour work in Australia could provide him with an opportunity to earn a greater income.

1. The Tribunal notes the evidence of assets and cash holdings of the visa applicant. The review applicant and visa applicant gave evidence that the visa applicant lives comfortably and adequately supports himself in India. The Tribunal considers the visa applicant's savings and assets are consistent with someone of his background but may be considered modest by Australian standards. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant will largely support the visa applicant for his visit. The Tribunal therefore gives low weight to the visa applicant's assets in India in supporting his intention to comply with the visa conditions.

1. Links to family and tradition have been discussed in paragraphs 17 a and b above, and submissions made by the review applicant dated 23 June 2025 further address the significance of family in the Sikh culture. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has strong family connections with many family members, including those who live outside of India.
2. A matter of particular significance to the Tribunal in assessing the visa applicant's incentive to return to India after a permitted stay in Australia is his impending marriage. The visa applicant was due to be married in 2024, but the Tribunal was advised that the wedding needed to be postponed. Evidence from the review applicant and was that the wedding was delayed due to a death in the family; the visa applicant gave evidence that the deaths of three significant family members influenced the delay. It is claimed that the wedding is now arranged to take place in January 2026 and a copy of a wedding invitation for the new date was provided to the Tribunal.
3. The review applicant offered in written submissions to the Tribunal on 25 April 2025 that additional documents, including wedding planning receipts, could be provided. At the hearing on 29 April 2025, the Tribunal asked for additional evidence such as the wedding planning receipts. A declaration from the visa applicant's future father-in-law, documents purporting to be evidence of catering and venue hire, photographs of the visa applicant and a woman said to be his fiancée and text messages between them, were provided. The Tribunal noted that one of the documents (venue hire) was undated, another (catering) appeared to be created after the date of the last hearing and they both contained information that appeared to be internally inconsistent or contrary to other evidence. The Tribunal asked the visa applicant about the venue and catering company, when the bookings were made and whether money had been paid. He said the bookings had been made around the 8 May 2025 and that deposits had been paid in cash by his uncle. Other responses to questions about the venue and catering companies, and wedding ceremony, were vague. The visa applicant was unable to advise whether either of the companies had an online business presence, but claimed to have visited both.
4. With respect to the date the documents were created, the review applicant advised the Tribunal that the documents were obtained to meet the request of the Tribunal and that it was not usual for bookings of the venue and catering to be formalised until much closer to the event.
5. Notwithstanding the explanations provided, and accepting the declaration from the visa applicant's future father-in-law attesting to the upcoming marriage, the Tribunal has doubts about the reliability of the documents purporting to be evidence of firm arrangements for the wedding. Submissions prior to hearing indicated the documents' availability at that date, and in circumstances where the wedding has already been delayed for two years the Tribunal has concerns about the commitment to the wedding. The Tribunal therefore gives low weight to the future wedding as supporting the visa applicant's intention to comply with the visa conditions.

1. During the hearing on 27 May 2025, the visa applicant said that he had applied for visitor visas to both Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). He said that the visa to the UK had been refused and that he had not received an outcome to the visa application for Canada. This was put to the review applicant in a letter for comment after the hearings as the Tribunal considered that it could indicate that the visa applicant was exploring migration opportunities.

1. The Tribunal has considered the response. The Tribunal accepts that there existed some compassionate circumstances for family travel to the UK but does not find the submissions provide any compelling information to dispel the Tribunal's concern about the motivation for the visa applicant's travel to the UK, Canada or Australia. The submission in response to the Tribunal letter included evidence of the visa applicant's mother's UK visa refusal (not the visa applicant's) and claimed that her refusal (and that of the visa applicant) was related to documentation issues. The information provided demonstrates that the official making the decision was not satisfied that the visa applicant's mother was a genuine visitor to the UK and intended to leave the UK at the end of her visit. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant was refused a visa to the UK for the same reasons and weighs this against the applicant in considering whether his intended stay in Australia is for a genuine temporary visit.

Character of the review applicant and her husband

1. The review applicant has provided information that demonstrates the good character and community mindedness of herself and her husband in supporting the Australian community in times of great need. This is virtuous but the Tribunal gives it low weight in assessing the intention of the visa applicant for a genuine temporary visit to Australia. Similarly, the Tribunal has noted the claim that the visa applicant volunteers in a local community kitchen in India, however, gives this low weight as it does not directly demonstrate his intention to return to India after a permitted stay in Australia.

The review applicant said that she was sure her brother would comply with the visa conditions and suggested that she could deposit a security bond, of up to $20,000 if necessary. Documents suggest the review applicant has funds available to provide such a bond. The visa applicant said he was aware that a security bond may be required to be paid by the sponsor and that he understood that it may be forfeited if he did not comply with the visa conditions. The Tribunal gives the proposed undertaking some weight, but notes it is a significant obligation for the review applicant, rather than the visa applicant.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the visa applicant intends to visit family in Australia and has carefully considered all relevant information. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal is not 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 not met.

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

Date(s) of hearing: 29 April 2025 and 27 May 2025

Representative for the Applicant: Mr SUMEET KHANNA (MARN: 1569486)