MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - sponsored family stream - visiting son and his family - genuine temporary entrant and compliance with conditions - no previous sponsorships, visas or travel - non-travelling husband and adult children - language, culture, extended family and community, and family's economic circumstances - assistance to grandchild with developmental condition and special needs - daughter-in-law's family all in Australia - understanding of and willingness to provide security bond - consequences of non-compliance for future applications - current travel warnings and safer and more stable conditions in major city - decision under review set aside and remitted

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231, Schedule 8, condition 8531

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 29 February 2024 (Delegate's Decision) to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). An application for review of that decision was lodged with this Tribunal on 1 May 2024 (Review Application). The review applicant is the visa applicant's son and sponsor for the visa applied for.
2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 12 January 2024. 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). Relevant to this case, they include cl 600.211, which requires the visa applicant to satisfy the Minister that they genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211.
4. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 March 2026 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant via telephone from Pakistan. An interpreter in the Hazaragi and English languages was present throughout the hearing. The review applicant chose to communicate largely in English, however the visa applicant communicated with the Tribunal through the interpreter provided.
5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.

Visitor Visa Application (VVA) and Sponsorship Form 1149

1. The VVA was completed with assistance from a Registered Migration Agent (RMA). It includes, in summary, that the visa applicant is a female citizen of Pakistan born in Quetta, Baluchistan, Pakistan, in March 1973. At the time of application, she resided in Jamshed Town, Sindh, Pakistan. She is married. Her employment status is declared as 'unemployed' and 'housewife'.
2. Her relatives, friends or contacts in Australia are identified only as her son, being the review applicant/sponsor for the VVA. He is declared to be a Pakistani passport holder and an Australian permanent resident. By the time of this decision, he had become an Australian citizen[1].
3. At the time of application the visa applicant proposed to visit Australia for the purpose of a family visit. Her proposed length of stay is up to 6 months with a planned arrival date of 10 February 2024 and a planned final departure date of 9 July 2024. She declares that both her grandsons in Australia were born on 14 February, one in 2018 and one in 2022, and she would like to be in Australia on that date. She intends to travel to Australia alone. Her non-accompanying family members are her husband born in 1969 and her three children born in 1992, 1994 and 2002. All those family members reside in Pakistan.
4. She has not previously travelled to Australia or previously applied for an Australian visa. She does not intend to undertake a course of study in Australia.
5. The visa applicant declares that she will be supported by the review applicant for her travel and proposed stay in Australia. She will live at the family home of the review applicant who will also cover the incidental costs of her proposed visit.
6. The Sponsorship Form adds, in summary, that the review applicant was born in Quetta, Pakistan, but lives in Victoria, Australia. He is employed as a full-time supervisor at a cladding company in Victoria, where he has worked for over two years. He also drives uber and does additional cladding and render work outside his full-time job hours. He has never previously sponsored any visitors to Australia.

1. The VVA was supported by documents submitted to the Department which evidence identity, family relationships, financial circumstances and prior travels of the visa and/or review applicant.
2. A written statement from the review applicant, which is typed in English, undated and unsigned, adds, in summary, that:
   1. he is married and has two children from his marriage, both born on 14 February, one in 2018 and one in 2022. His firstborn child has severe autism and is non-verbal. His wife is a housewife who looks after the children and home.
   2. He has worked as a cladding supervisor since 2021. In addition, since February 2023 he has driven Uber and done subcontract render work on weekends.
   3. Due to his work pressures, his wife has carried the load of caring for the children, including a child with severe autism. This has caused stress for him and his wife. They need help from the visa applicant so they can recharge and spend personal time together, at least in the evenings. They need someone around the children '24/7 for sometimes'. His mother has agreed to visit from Pakistan to help for six months. After that she must return to her husband in Pakistan. She cannot leave him alone for longer than that.

1. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the delegate was not satisfied the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted under clause 600.211. In summary, the delegate found that the visa applicant's incentives to return to her home country after the proposed visit are outweighed by incentives to remain in Australia. The delegate's concerns included that the visa applicant provided no details of her own financial circumstances or evidence of savings, pensions or other streams of revenue; and the visa applicant has not provided evidence of sufficient personal, business, employment and cultural ties to her home country to demonstrate that she intends a genuine temporary stay in Australia.

1. No additional documentary evidence was submitted to the Tribunal prior to hearing. However, post-hearing submissions included evidence such as National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) records confirming the review applicant's eldest son's developmental conditions.

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 sought the visa for the purposes of visiting her Australian permanent resident son (i.e. the review applicant) and his family in Australia. Department movement records show that the review applicant is now an Australian Citizen. During the hearing the visa and review applicant repeated that the purpose of the visa applicant's proposed visit remains to visit her son and his family in Australia. 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 she has complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa held, or any subsequent bridging visa (cl 600.211(a)). There is no credible evidence before me that the visa applicant has ever held an Australia visa or ever entered Australia. Accordingly, I give this consideration neutral weight in assessing whether the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
4. 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.
5. The visa and review applicant each gave oral evidence that the visa applicant does not speak or understand English; will stay with and be supported financially for the duration of her intended stay in Australia by the review applicant. The visa applicant expressly stated in the VVA and in her oral evidence at hearing that she does not intend to undertake any course of study in Australia. The evidence before me is also that the visa applicant has never been in paid employment, that her role for most of her adult life has been as a housewife who takes care of her family and her domestic environment; that this is how she generally spends her days in Pakistan; and that her sole purpose in visiting Australia is to spend time with her son and his family and provide domestic, emotional and family support to them for a short time. Based on the evidence cumulatively, and with no credible evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the visa applicant does not intend to work in Australia, or to engage in study or training in Australia. I am therefore satisfied that the visa applicant intends to comply with conditions 8101 and 8201.
6. Condition 8503 refers to an entitlement and does not involve compliance. Notwithstanding this, there is no credible evidence before me that the visa applicant intends to apply for a substantive visa while onshore.
7. The applicant's intention to comply with condition 8531 is considered with all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)) below.
8. Relevant evidence given orally at hearing includes that the visa applicant's visit would assist the review applicant and his family to feel supported in their family life, allowing them some respite from the challenges of work and taking care of their 2 children, the eldest of whom is on the Autism spectrum and is non-verbal. Based on the NDIS documentation and oral evidence before me, I accept that the review applicant's eldest child, now aged 8, suffers from developmental differences. I also accept that the review applicant has a younger child, now aged 4 years, and that he and his wife find it difficult to navigate the high demands of work, family life, the special needs of their eldest child and the ordinary needs of their youngest child.
9. The review applicant's oral evidence is that a visit from his mother, the visa applicant, would offer him and his wife some respite and peace of mind in their family life; the visa applicant's presence in their household, even for a short time, would provide practical domestic support, emotional and other support to the review applicant, his wife and children. The review applicant added that, one consequence of the Delegate's Decision to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor visa, has been to heighten the psychological distress of the review and visa applicant by creating an awareness in them that overseas family members cannot visit Australia when they are needed. This has made the distance between them feel more significant.
10. Regarding the visa applicant's ties in Pakistan, the oral evidence from both the visa and review applicant was consistent. It includes that the visa applicant continues to be a housewife who lives together with her husband, now aged around 57, and her daughter who remains unmarried. Altogether, the visa applicant has 3 children including the review applicant. Her other son is currently in the USA, studying on a scholarship. He intends to return to Pakistan soon. As to whether the visa applicant has ever lodged an application to visit her son in the USA, or to go elsewhere outside Pakistan, the oral evidence given was that she has not. She had not even made an application to visit Australia prior to the VVA. This is because the review applicant's family view international travel as something to do only if necessary. Unless there is a need to travel, they do not travel. The only reason the visa applicant has sought to visit to Australia is because of the review applicant's challenging family situation arising from the special needs of his eldest child. This convinced the visa applicant and her husband that her brief absence from life in Pakistan was justified as the visa applicant's short-term support and assistance was needed by the review applicant and his family in Australia. The oral evidence of the visa and review applicant is that the visa applicant proposes to visit Australia for 3 to 6 months.
11. Both the review and visa applicant gave oral evidence at hearing that the visa applicant has been married to the review applicant's father and cohabited with him for decades, together raising 3 children who are now adults. They have no significant financial assets in Pakistan as all their savings were directed toward educating their three children. The visa applicant and her husband live in a rented premises in Karachi. They have lived in the same neighbourhood for around 9 years. The neighbourhood is predominantly Hazara, like the review and visa applicant and their family. The visa applicant's primary language is Hazaragi. She is familiar with her neighbourhood in terms of language, culture, society and environment. She goes about her public and private life with independence and confidence. She also attends a Koran school daily. She would not enjoy an equivalent level of immersion in her environment in Australia, where she is unfamiliar with the language, culture and lifestyle. I accept that evidence and give it significant weight in assessing the visa applicant's intention regarding her proposed visit to Australia.
12. The visa and review applicant also gave oral evidence that, culturally and personally, the visa applicant sees her place as being with her husband who will remain in Pakistan for the duration of her proposed visit. Her husband has his brother and sister living close by in Karachi. They see each other almost daily. Her husband also owns a bakery at which he works daily. His presence in Pakistan is essential for the running of that business. He relies on the visa applicant to take care of him and the home, including his meals, in his daily life, while he takes care of his business and earns the income on which his family relies. He has agreed for the visa applicant to visit Australia for a short time only because he is convinced that the review applicant and his family need her help.
13. The oral evidence given at hearing included that, while the visa applicant is visiting Australia, her husband and daughter will continue to look after each other in Pakistan as best they can. Her daughter is a doctor and works at the hospital daily but returns home in the evenings. Her daughter has a good job in her chosen career in Pakistan and intends to remain living there. Her presence in Pakistan as the visa applicant's only daughter, and being unmarried, is a further strong incentive for the visa applicant to return to Pakistan after a short stay in Australia. I accept that the visa applicant's husband and daughter in Pakistan provide her with strong incentives to return to Pakistan.
14. Relevant to the review applicant's need for temporary family support and assistance in Australia, I explored with him the family support available here from his wife's relatives. His oral evidence included that his wife's entire family of origin resides in Australia, including her parents, 2 brothers and 3 sisters. They all reside in Melbourne, as does the review applicant and his family. As to why his in-laws are unable to provide the support he is hoping to get from the visa applicant, he offered that they are all busy with their lives in Australia, including study and work commitments; his wife's mother has mental health/memory issues and does not drive; most of his wife's siblings have their own young families and family responsibilities and cannot provide the type of assistance he would get if his mother visits and lives with them for a short period.
15. I discussed with the review applicant that, while it is not open to the Tribunal to request a security bond, it is something the Department may consider requesting. The review applicant demonstrated his understanding that a security bond can be requested by the Department as additional security for visa compliance, that it can be in the tens of thousands of dollars, that it can be forfeited in the event of visa non-compliance, and that it would be returned once the visa applicant departs Australia having complied with the conditions of her stay. In the context of this awareness, the review applicant's oral evidence was that he is willing to provide a security bond of any amount, reflecting his confidence and certainty that his mother will comply with all the conditions of the visa applied for; and that she will return to Pakistan within the permitted duration of her stay. I give the review applicant's evidence on this weight in reflecting the genuineness of the visa applicant's intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
16. I also place weight on the review applicant's demonstrated awareness that visa non-compliance by a family member can adversely impact the ability of that family member and others to visit Australia in the future. In the context of the review applicant having several overseas relatives including his mother, father, sister and brother, I consider these potential impacts of visa non-compliance to be a significant deterrent to visa non-compliance by the visa applicant. I find that it informs the visa applicant's intentions regarding her proposed stay in Australia, weighing in favour of her holding a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
17. I discussed with the review applicant that there are current travel warnings in relation to Pakistan, including by the Australian Government[2], which refer to border conflicts and the potential for civil unrest. I discussed with him that this may raise concerns that the visa applicant may intend to remain in Australia long term to avoid returning to a volatile security situation in Pakistan. In response the review applicant offered that the visa applicant and her household reside in a safe area of Karachi. They do not reside near a border area. His father and sister work in Karachi. They have never had problems there. Karachi is considered an economic hub in Pakistan, so the Government is careful to ensure its safety and stability. There are few Pashtuns and other ethnicities in his mother's local area. They are surrounded largely by Hazara people. The visa applicant does not fear for her safety in Karachi and never has. Karachi has been like a 'safe haven' for the visa applicant and her household. On the evidence before me, I accept that the visa applicant has not faced harm and that she does not fear harm in Pakistan; and that she is not directly impacted by the security concerns reported and discussed with the review applicant.
18. While I acknowledge the delegate's concerns regarding the lack of demonstrated financial incentives for the visa applicant to return to Pakistan after a short visit to Australia, I find that the review and visa applicant were transparent and credible in their oral evidence to the Tribunal. They made no attempt to overstate or embellish their financial circumstances in Pakistan. They acknowledged the higher earning capacity in Australia, while also noting the higher costs of living in Australia and the comfort and familiarity the visa applicant enjoys in Pakistan. They also highlighted that the primary incentives for the visa applicant to return to Pakistan after a short stay in Australia are personal, cultural and emotional, based in family connections and roles, particularly of the visa applicant as a wife and mother. I find that evidence to be strong and persuasive.
19. Based on the evidence overall and the above considerations cumulatively, I am satisfied that the visa applicant intends to comply with the condition to not remain in Australia after the end of her permitted stay, as required by condition 8531. I am also satisfied that the purpose for which the Visitor visa the subject of this review is sought is for the visa applicant to support her son and his family for a short period in Australia, to offer them respite from the challenges of their daily lives.
20. Considering all the evidence before me and 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, I am satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
21. For the above reasons I am 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.

[1] As evidenced in Department movement records available to the Tribunal

[2] Pakistan Travel Advice & Safety | Smartraveller suggests