2313037 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1128

2313037 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1128 (23 MAY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2313037

Tribunal:General Member J Wilson
Place:Canberra
Date: 23 May 2025
Decision: 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.

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – employment in home country – other family visa sponsorship – familial ties to Ethiopia – political and economic conditions in Ethiopia – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231, 600.612
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 29 June 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 applied for the visa on 29 May 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.
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.
The grant of the visa was refused because despite the visa applicant demonstrating some familial ties to Ethiopia, the delegate was not satisfied that the ties were a sufficient incentive for the visa applicant to return to Ethiopia at the end of the visit. Accordingly, the delegate found the visa applicant did not meet the genuine temporary stay criterion in cl 600.211.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 May 2025 via video from Melbourne to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from a family friend and from the visa applicant by telephone from Ethiopia. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic and English languages.
The review applicant was represented by an Australian Legal Practitioner in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside, and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
The review applicant is [an age]-year-old female born in the Oromia region of Ethiopia. She is now an Australian Citizen, having obtained a permanent protection visa in 2014 as a refugee. The review applicant seeks to sponsor her mother, [an age]-year-old Ethiopian national, to visit Australia for a period up to 3 months to spend time with her.
The review applicant’s personal circumstances have changed somewhat since she lodged an application to sponsor the visa in 2023.
In evidence given to this Tribunal, the review applicant is a mother to two young children who both currently live in Ethiopia with their respective fathers. Her youngest child is an Australian citizen. The review applicant lives in Australia alone. She works three jobs to support herself and her family: her primary role is in a Melbourne [agency], her part-time job is in the [named] sector, and she works casually with [Employer 1]. She says she misses her family and merely wishes to have the opportunity to spend time with her mother in Australia as her work commitments prevent her from currently leaving Australia.
The visa applicant plans to escort the review applicant’s youngest child to Australia to permit the review applicant to also spend time with her child. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
The review applicant is also currently awaiting a separate visa decision for her husband, who is an applicant for a partner visa, currently waiting offshore for that visa to be decided. In evidence given to this Tribunal, it is her hope that she can be reunited with her partner and youngest child and to live in Australia as a family unit, if the partner visa is granted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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:
a.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;
b.whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and
c.any other relevant matter.
This decision assesses each factor in turn.
Has the visa applicant substantially complied with prior visa conditions?
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)).
In this matter, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant has never travelled to Australia before, so there is no prior Australian immigration history to assess. Indeed, in oral evidence given at the hearing, the visa applicant stated she has never departed Ethiopia. Accordingly, this trip represents the visa applicant’s first potential international voyage. For this reason, the Tribunal applies a neutral weighting to the criterion.
The Tribunal notes that based on the Departmental information available the visa applicant has applied for an Australian visitor visa on one prior occasion, which was also refused.
Does the visa applicant intend to comply with her visa conditions
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.
In the visa applicant’s favour, much of the evidence points to her having an intention to comply with the respective visa conditions. The visa applicant made a written declaration in her protection visa that she would not undertake training in contravention of her visa conditions, and responded that she understood that she could not work and must leave Australia before the expiry of her visa. The Tribunal also asked the applicant at the hearing about her intentions, and she confirmed in oral evidence that she understood her visa conditions and would comply with them.
The Tribunal also explained the visa conditions and sponsorship obligations to the review applicant at the hearing. In response, the review applicant said she understood and was “110% sure” that her mother will comply with her visa conditions and depart Australia prior to the expiration of the visa.
The review applicant and visa applicant have each provided consistent evidence that the visa applicant has:
a.a spouse, adult children and grandchildren in Ethiopia;
b.carer responsibilities for her elderly parents;
c.long-term ongoing employment in a [business 1] for over ten years; and
d.a property in Ethiopia.
The Tribunal has also been provided with a letter from the visa applicant’s current employer indicating that she will be granted long service leave to permit her to make the trip to Australia. The Tribunal has also received a land title document as evidence of proof of ownership of property.
At the hearing, the Tribunal also received oral evidence under oath from a family friend, who is also an Australian citizen, who provided consistent evidence of both the applicant’s personal circumstances and reasons for this proposed trip to Australia. A second family friend appeared at the hearing, willing and able to provide additional evidence, however the Tribunal determined it was not necessary for him to provide additional evidence.
The Tribunal considers the evidence provided consistently expresses the view that the applicants understand the visa conditions and have an intention to comply.
Additionally, the Tribunal considers the fact that the review applicant is currently also navigating the process of sponsoring her husband to come to Australia places an additional incentive on the review applicant to ensure her mother complies with her visa conditions, to not place the other visa application in jeopardy.
The Tribunal notes that the task of determining a person’s true intentions is not without some difficulty and that expressed intentions do not always reflect subsequent conduct. The Tribunal has considered the possibility that the applicant may come to Australia for the purposes of working or training, however considers the risk to be low based on her age, limited command of the English language, and the family circumstances.
Any concerns that the Tribunal may have concerning the visa applicant’s intention to comply, and work in particular, is also tempered by the review applicant’s evidence that she will provide all financial support to the visa applicant, including covering the costs of airfares and all incidentals. The review applicant gave evidence that her mother will stay with her for the duration of the stay and that there will not be any additional accommodation expenses, as she owns her own home (under mortgage). They do not intend extended or extravagant travel in Australia and the evidence suggests they will largely use the time to live together at the review applicant’s home for up to three months, while she balances her ongoing work commitments. The review applicant gave evidence that she has annual leave available from her primary employment that she will use to maximise their time together.
The Tribunal has considered whether the visa applicant can reasonably finance her mother’s trip to Australia. She has given oral evidence of having approximately $AUD13,000 in savings available to fund this visit, which is supported by recent bank statements. While it is not a large sum, the review applicant claims it is sufficient to cover the air fare and their incidentals for the period requested, and that she will continue to undertake some part-time and casual work, such that she will have ongoing income for the period of the proposed stay. The Tribunal accepts this to be true.
The Tribunal considers any possible risk of non-compliance to be more likely associated with whether the visa applicant will depart prior to expiry of the visitor visa, if it is granted. As stated above, there is no prior history of international travel or immigration compliance that can provide an indicator of likely future conduct.
The Tribunal has considered the country information relevant to Ethiopia in forming a conclusion about whether the visa applicant will comply with the visa condition to depart Australia. The currently available Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report - Ethiopia (the DFAT Report) was released on 12 December 2020 and is now somewhat dated. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has considered its contents and has supplemented it with more recent information available concerning Ethiopia from the United Nations General Assembly Report dated 14 September 2023, which in summary, states that grave and systemic violations of international law and crimes continue to be committed in the Oromia region of Ethiopia.[1] This suggests that the visa applicant may have an incentive to remain in Australia and not return to Ethiopia. The Tribunal notes that since the review applicant was granted her protection visa, the country situation has changed somewhat, and that the current Ethiopian Prime Minister is the first prime minister of the Oromo ethnic group[2] and that the DFAT Report assesses that overall, Oromos face a low risk of official discrimination based on ethnicity, and a moderate risk of violence in areas of states where they constitute a minority.[3]
[1] Human Rights Council, Report on the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, Agenda Item 4, UN Doc A/HRC/54/55 (14 September 2023) 1.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Ethiopia (12 August 2020) 9.
[3] Ibid 22-23.
The review applicant gave oral evidence that neither of the parents are current members of any political party or groups and the applicants have given consistent evidence that the visa applicant is resident in [City 1], Oromia – an area the Tribunal understands is majority Oromia peoples. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers there is no evidence to suggest the country information should apply differently to the visa applicant. The applicants and the witness also gave evidence of the broader family in Ethiopia being currently safe and of no particular risk profile in Ethiopia, a claim the Tribunal accepts, especially having regard to the evidence that the review applicant has travelled between Australia and Ethiopia on several occasions since being granted protection.
The Tribunal needs to balance the country information with the applicants’ personal circumstances.

Other relevant circumstances
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)) and has included in its assessment that the visa applicant will bring the review applicant’s Australian citizen son to Australia, and then escort him back to Ethiopia while he awaits the determination of his father’s partner visa application.
The Tribunal has received and considered documentary information both from the review applicant and the Department which verifies the child is an Australian citizen and is currently offshore, consistent with the review applicant’s claims.
Having regard to the totality of the applicants’ personal circumstances, the Tribunal considers the weight of evidence points to the visa applicant having sufficient reasons to return to Ethiopia and having an intention to comply with her visa conditions.
Accordingly, the evidence supports the view that the visa applicant has a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
Security Bond
The Tribunal took evidence from the review applicant to the effect that she would be willing to lodge a security bond if requested by the delegate. In her words, she will ‘do anything requested’ to assist the process. If the Department were to form the view that a bond is necessary, the Tribunal considers that a sum not exceeding $AUD4,000 would be reasonable and a sufficient deterrent to guard against non-compliance, having regard to the review applicant’s financial means.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons 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.
DECISION
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.
Date(s) of hearing: 13 May 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Constantine Stamopoulos, Bentleys Barristers & Solicitors