MIGRATION - Visitor (Class FA) visa - Subclass 600 (Visitor) - sponsored family stream - visiting Australian citizen sister - genuine temporary entrant - anonymous allegations of intention to apply for protection - previous compliant travel to other countries - secure full-time job, part-ownership of family business, living with mother and other siblings and religious, cultural and social activities - review applicant's intention to sponsor other family members and offer of security bond - genuine and consistent evidence - allegations cannot be tested and given no weight - procedural fairness - decision under review remitted

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 4 January 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 is a citizen of Pakistan and a member of the Christian faith. He applied for the visa on 12 December 2023 to visit family in Australia. 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). Relevant 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 department file indicates that, prior to the delegate making the decision several emails were sent to various Commonwealth departments containing identical letters alleging the applicant sought to use the visa process to apply for asylum and permanent residence.[1] The letters referred to Christians in Pakistan in general terms and claimed the applicant's conduct created cultural, financial and familial difficulties for relatives in Australia and Pakistan, describing this as: "Misrepresentation to immigration and apply for Asylum visas for non Generic Asylum immigration to Australia [sic]". The letters originated from a generic email account using a name that is not listed as one of the applicant's relatives in any of the materials before the Tribunal.
5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211 because the available financial and employment evidence suggested that the visa applicant did not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The department file contains no record of the visa or review applicant being notified of the unsolicited correspondence about him, nor provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the decision was made. The delegate also did not refer to the allegation letters in the decision.
6. The review applicant applied for a review of the delegate's decision on 21 February 2024. The review applicant is the sister of the visa applicant and an Australian citizen who lives in Western Australia. She has no other nuclear family in Australia.
7. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 September 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant who appeared from Pakistan. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in Urdu and English languages.
8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside, and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.

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 family in Australia. The review applicant came to Australia on a spousal visa and became an Australian citizen while onshore. She explained that other than her husband and dependent children, she has no other nuclear family in Australia.
3. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted pursuant to cl 600.231.
4. 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)). The visa applicant has not held any Australian visa. He has travelled to other countries and gave evidence that he complied with the visa conditions in those countries. There is no objective evidence of non-compliance with visa conditions for any country before the Tribunal. Clause 600.211(a) is satisfied.
5. 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.
6. The review applicant provided a range of employment, financial and property records relating to the visa applicant which the Tribunal has reviewed and accepts are genuine. The records indicate that the visa applicant has a secure full-time job, working in airport security. The applicants gave evidence the visa applicant receives a sustainable income, has no debts, including no mortgage, and his income allows him to live comfortably. The applicants gave consistent evidence that the visa applicant supports and lives with his family and takes care of his mother financially.
7. The visa applicant also stated that he owns a business. Property and financial records indicate his ownership amounts to a quarter share in a family automotive business. A statutory declaration from the visa applicant's older brother, was provided stating that the visa applicant is provided fortnightly shareholder payments of Rs55,000 from the business. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant is a shareholder in the family business but is unable to verify the stated payments given that the applicant's bank records do not contain records of transactions matching those amounts.[2] In assessing income the Tribunal gives greater weight to official government records of annual income from the Pakistan Federal Board of Revenue, which indicate that his total income is Rs1,050,000 for the most recent tax year. That equates to an average monthly wage of approximately Rs87,500. The Tribunal is satisfied that this figure, supported by payslips from his government employment, and confirmed by his most recent tax return, is the best evidence of his income.
8. Country information indicates that the applicant's wage is more than twice the minimum wage in Punjab,[3] and slightly above average with reported income data from Faisalabad (around Rs62,000.00 per month).[4] The applicants gave evidence that the visa applicant lives in the family home with other siblings rent free and that he is provided with benefits such as healthcare and training support as part of his job. In that context, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would be able to enjoy a modest lifestyle based on his income and expenses.[5]
9. The Tribunal gives positive, albeit limited, weight to the applicant's financial circumstances in respect of his genuine temporary intentions. With respect to his property interests the Tribunal considers these to be primarily shared with other family members or amount to assets which are transferrable or easily liquified and gives those matters neutral weighting. Similarly, while the applicant does not pay rent as part of his living costs, he does not own a house and instead shares occupancy of the family home with others. There was no evidence that he is attempting to or in the process of purchasing his own property in Pakistan. The Tribunal considers this slightly weighs against him having an incentive to return there.
10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a mother and siblings in Pakistan and that the family is close. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant supports his mother in various ways, including through financial contributions. However, the evidence is that other family members live in the same house and the Tribunal considers it likely that the financial and caregiver support referred to by the applicant is shared by the siblings who live there, such that the visa applicant does not bear the full burden. The Tribunal gives limited positive weight to the connections the visa applicant has to his nuclear family in Pakistan.
11. Conversely, the visa applicant has no partner or children of his own, which reduces the possible familial commitments he might have in Pakistan and suggests possible mobility. That potential for mobility is strengthened by the transferrable nature of his job - as a security officer he would be able to find work in most economies, including Australia -- which could reduce his incentive to return to Pakistan.
12. The visa applicant gave evidence about his religious, cultural and social activities in Faisalabad, in particular his participation in gospel singing. The Tribunal accepts that evidence but considers that the discussed activities were personal interests and hobbies that could be undertaken either in Pakistan or Australia. The Tribunal notes the support letters of the local Australian church which the review applicant attends for the visa applicant's visit indicating that he would be welcomed into a local religious community where he could pursue his current activities and personal interests. The Tribunal gives neutral weighting to the cultural, social and religious evidence.
13. The review applicant explained that she would cover the costs of the applicant's travel to Australia. The Tribunal has considered the various evidence about the review applicant's financial circumstances and accepts that she is capable of this. The review applicant also provided statutory declarations attesting to her belief that the visa applicant would adhere to the conditions of his visa and offered a security bond as assurance of that belief. The Tribunal considers the review applicant to have given honest testimony about her belief that her brother would return to Pakistan at the end of his trip. Both applicants acknowledged the potential effects of his overstaying on the review applicant's ability to sponsor other family members in the future which she said she would like to do. Given the relationship between the siblings the Tribunal weighs this positively in favour of compliance.
14. The Tribunal has reviewed all of the materials and evidence placed before it and, having balanced all the relevant factors, concludes that the overall weight of the evidence is neutral or slightly in favour of the review applicant's claims. While the visa applicant has no nuclear family of his own, a comparatively small income and limited asset permanence, he has a secure and stable job, connections to a broader family network, and is embedded in his life and community in Pakistan. Having heard from both applicants, the Tribunal considers their testimony as to the visa applicant's intentions to have been honestly and genuinely given. There is no objective individualised or general information about the visa applicant that otherwise suggests he is at high risk of breaching his visa conditions in Australia. In those circumstances the preferable decision is to give the applicants the benefit of the doubt and accept the genuineness of his stated intentions.
15. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).
16. A particular issue raised by this review was what, if any, weight to give to the unsolicited correspondence contained in the department file making allegations about the visa applicant. As set out above, the visa applicant was not notified of that material before the original decision was made. The material was also not referred to in the original decision and, at the hearing, both applicants said they were entirely unaware of the letters. The Tribunal accepts this evidence. While it infers from the lack of reference that the letters were not considered by the delegate, it notes the importance of procedural fairness and the need to avoid apprehended bias when such allegations have been made. The Tribunal therefore notified the applicant of the letters at the hearing and provided both the review and visa applicants the opportunity to respond to them.
17. Having notified the parties of the existence and general allegations made in the letters at the hearing the review applicant replied that she was not able to make any substantive submissions, as she was unaware of the author, reasons, or basis for the letters. She emphasised that the letters had no basis in fact and reiterated her other claims that her brother's visit was for genuine purposes.
18. Having considered the review applicant's responses, the Tribunal has chosen not to take the letters into account in assessing the genuineness of the visa applicant's intentions. The Tribunal acknowledges the existence of the letters but does not consider them relevant and has not given them any weight. That is because their contents cannot be tested in any meaningful way. There is more reliable country information, which does not support the claims made in the letters, at least in the extreme way they are put.[6] Ultimately there is more reliable and credible evidence about the visa applicant's individual before the Tribunal, which it prefers to the allegations made in the unsolicited letters.
19. Consequently, 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.

[1] File No BCC20237223310, IDs: CLD2023/111067374, CLD2024/976037, CLD2024/1171520; There is no non-disclosure certificate on the departmental file, but the Tribunal infers some quality of confidence from the fact the letters may identify their author or authors. For that reason, the contents have been summarised, rather than reproduced in full here.

[2] The Tribunal does note that irregular credits of smaller amounts, which do not appear to be payment from the visa applicant's regular employer, are recorded on his financial records but the source of these transactions is unclear.

[3] "Budget 2025-25: Punjab increases minimum wage for workers" SAMAA, (online, 16 Jun 2025) https://www.samaa.tv/2087335066-budget-2025-25-punjab-increases-minimum-wage-for-workers

[4] "Cost of Living in Faisalabad. Aug 2025" https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Faisalabad ; "Cost of Living in Pakistan. Prices in Pakistan. Updated Sep 2025" https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country\_result.jsp?country=Pakistan

[6] DFAT Country Information Report - Pakistan (30 April 2025).