2501785 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 916

2501785 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 916 (21 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2501785

Tribunal:Paul Windsor
Place:Melbourne
Date: 21 March 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.

Statement made on 21 March 2025 at 11:31 am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – financial circumstances – family health issues – property ownership – balance of family in Pakistan – compassionate circumstances – offer of a security bond – 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 20 December 2024 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 26 November 2024. 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 delegate refused to grant the visa because they were not satisfied the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia. In their decision record, the delegate indicated that they:
·     Gave some weight to the visa applicant’s daughter’s pregnancy and son-in-law’s illness but found this in itself does not demonstrate that the applicant intends a genuine temporary stay.
·     Found the visa applicant provided limited details of her own financial circumstances and had not provided sufficient evidence of savings, ongoing salary or pensions.
·     Gave limited weight to the visa applicant owning land and property assets finding these are easily transferable and could potentially be sold or leased while she is in Australia.
·     The delegate concluded that the visa applicant had not demonstrated strong employment or financial ties to Pakistan and gave this significant weight.
·     Noting the current economic circumstances in Pakistan, the delegate considered the applicant’s financial circumstances may induce her to seek to remain in Australia.
The review applicant sought review of this decision on 15 January 2025. She provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 March 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant and the review applicant’s husband. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Dari and English languages.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be set aside and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.
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 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.
In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting her daughter and her daughter’s family in Australia. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
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)).
As the visa applicant has never held an Australian visa previously or travelled to Australia, this factor is not relevant in her case.
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.
The information in her visa application and supporting documents indicates the visa applicant is the [age] year old mother of the review applicant, who is [age] years old. She is an ethnic Hazara of the Shi’a Muslim faith from Quetta in Balochistan province, Pakistan. She is married and has [specified children], including the review [applicant]. She indicated she wished to visit Australia for up to 12 months as soon as possible, because her daughter was expecting the birth of [a] child in [early] 2025 and her daughter’s husband is on a waiting list for a [surgical] transplant.
The visa applicant previously sought a Visitor visa but this was also refused (in September 2024). She has never travelled to Australia previously. At the hearing she indicated she has travelled outside of Pakistan to Iran and Iraq on religious pilgrimages.
Evidence was submitted in support of the review application indicating that the review applicant gave birth to a [child] on [date]. She also has [other children].
Evidence was submitted in support of the review application indicating that the review applicant’s husband, who is [age] years of age, is suffering from advanced [medical condition 1], is on the [specified] transplant waitlist and could be called in for transplant at any moment. He will need his wife’s support to assist him and help him recover from the operation.
At the hearing, the review applicant indicated she first came to Australia in October 2014 on a Partner (Provisional) visa. She was granted a permanent Partner visa in June 2015 and became an Australian citizen in September 2020. She confirmed she is an ethnic Hazara Shi’a Muslim who was born in Quetta Pakistan. She advised that she and her husband, who was born in Afghanistan, were married in Quetta. She indicated that she does not engage in paid employment. She indicated she does not have any other family in Australia. She said her [siblings] in Pakistan are [married] and live with their [in-laws]. She said her parents live in Quetta with her [age] year old [sibling], who is single.
The review applicant’s husband indicated he came to Australia in 2010 [details deleted]. He said he does not have any other family members in Australia. He indicated his brother is married and has [number] children. He said that his brother and his brother’s wife cannot assist them as they live separately, about 30 minutes’ drive away and have their own family responsibilities. While he worked previously in Australia, he indicated he can no longer work due to his health condition and receives a disability support pension. He indicated the family also receive some additional income from [buildings] attached to their house which they rent out.
The visa applicant confirmed that she lives with her husband and [a child] in the family home in Quetta. She said one of her [children] lives in Quetta [an another] lives in Karachi. She indicated [which of her children] have children, [noting the number of grandchildren]. She indicated she is a housewife and does not undertake any paid employment, but derives income from a property she rents for PKR 45,000 per month (the equivalent of approximately AUD 250 per month). She said her husband runs a small shop which sells [products].
The Tribunal observed that the bank statement she submitted showed a large increase in balance from 16 September to 30 October 2024, increasing from PKR 200,000 to PKR 3,899,000 (the equivalent of approximately AUD 1,125 to AUD 21,937). The visa applicant commented that initially she did not have much money in the account and kept cash at home, but decided to deposit that in the bank due to ‘insecurity’.
The Tribunal queried the visa applicant how her husband and [child] would cope if she was away in Australia for 12 months. She commented that her husband can cook for them.
The Tribunal finds that there are strong compassionate circumstances in this case as the review applicant has no family support in Australia and she can obtain little or no assistance from her husband’s brother and his family. She is coping with a new baby, [number] other young children and supporting a husband who is seriously ill. Her husband advised at the hearing that he has now been told he is second on the waiting list for a [transplant] and could be called at any time to have the transplant operation. He said his wife will go with him to the hospital and they need someone to care for their [children].
The Tribunal finds that both the review applicant and the visa applicant have quite modest family incomes and limited savings. Notwithstanding this, having carefully considered the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant wishes to visit Australia for 12 months to support her daughter during what is a very difficult time for her daughter.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant is well settled in Quetta where she has her husband and [child] living with her, and two of her [number] children and [number] grandchildren living in Quetta and Karachi. Given the visa applicant’s age and background, the Tribunal is satisfied that, if granted the visa, the visa applicant does not intend to work or undertake study or training in Australia in breach of conditions 8101 or 8201.
Condition 8503 is a bar on applying for substantive visas while in Australia, other than a protection visa, so is not a condition that can be breached as such. Accordingly, the main issue in this matter is whether the visa applicant would comply with condition 8531, and depart Australia before the expiry of the stay period permitted by the visa, if granted.
Relevant to the consideration of all other matters (cl 600.211(c)), the Tribunal discussed with the review and visa applicants at the hearing the gist of the following advice drawn from the current DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan:[1]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 25 January 2022, sections 2.7, 2.34-2.36, and 3.3-3.12.
Economy
Pakistan is a lower-middle income country, with a GDP per capita of USD 1,349. Major economic sectors are services (61 per cent of GDP), agriculture (19 per cent), and manufacturing (14 per cent). The economy has grown slowly over recent decades and was lacklustre even before the COVID-19 pandemic. The official unemployment rate in 2020 was 4.5 per cent, and inflation was 10.7 per cent.
Security Situation
Following improvement over recent years, the security situation in Pakistan has deteriorated since mid-2021. Causes of insecurity include domestic politics, religious extremism, ethnic conflicts, gender-based issues, sectarian hatred, economic hardship, petty and organised crime, tensions with India and the situation in Afghanistan.
Terrorist attacks increased in 2021, following a six-year downward trend noted by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS).
Most terrorist attacks target civilians or security forces, vehicles and outposts. Places of worship, schools, and other buildings have also been targeted. Attacks usually involve improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or gun attacks, although rocket, grenade and suicide bomb attacks also occur.
Most attacks happen in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (especially North Waziristan) and Balochistan, although Punjab and Sindh (especially Karachi) are also targeted.
Hazara Shias
The Hazaras are an ethnic group of distinctive East Asian appearance, native to the Hazarajat region of Afghanistan. Their language, Hazaragi, is a variety of Persian that is mutually intelligible with Dari. There are an estimated 600,000 to 1 million Hazaras in Pakistan. Most are Shi’a Muslims of the Twelver Sect, although some belong to the Ismaeli sect and a small number are Sunni.
Large groups of Hazaras migrated to Pakistan from Afghanistan in the late 19th century, during the 1978-89 Afghan War, and following the Taliban takeover in 1996. Most live in enclaves in Quetta due to the security situation in Balochistan. Smaller populations live in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. Hazaras outside Quetta tend not to live in enclaves to reduce the risk of ethnic profiling, discrimination and attack.
Militant groups including, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and Islamic State (IS) consider the Hazaras ‘infidels’ who are ‘worthy of killing’. A 2019 report by the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) said at least 2,000 Hazaras had been killed by militants in Pakistan since 1999 ‘in various incidents including bomb blast, suicide attacks and target killings’. No one has been held accountable for these attacks. Hazara political and religious leaders have been targeted for assassination. In April 2019, a bombing in Hazarganji market killed 24 people, many of them Hazaras. In January 2021, IS militants killed 11 Hazara miners in Mach. While there have been no attacks outside Balochistan since 2014, Hazaras have previously been targeted in Karachi, Peshawar and elsewhere. Militant groups retain the intent and capacity to attack Hazaras throughout Pakistan.
The Hazara community in Quetta lives in two enclaves: Hazara town and Mariabad. The Pakistani government provides security in these communities, including vehicle checkpoints and searches on entry and exit. Government forces also provide security for Hazara religious processions and Hazarganji market. Hazaras who leave Quetta are required to notify the security agencies. Local sources report Frontier Corps routinely harass Hazaras at checkpoints. Human Rights Watch has reported that retired members of the Frontier Corps have described Hazaras as ‘agents of Iran’ and ‘untrustworthy’.
Medical, education and other services inside the enclaves are basic. Food and other essentials must be brought in from outside, and prices are reportedly double those elsewhere in Quetta. Those who can afford to travel to Karachi for medical treatment do so, while others must attend Quetta hospitals outside the enclaves, where they have been attacked in the past. Sectarian militants have also attacked Hazara religious processions, places of worship, and pilgrims on their way to Iran.
Schools exist within the enclaves, but there is little opportunity for higher education. Many Hazara students have abandoned the hope of higher education due to the risk of travelling. A small number of wealthier Hazaras send their children to study at universities in Lahore or Islamabad, where they reportedly feel safer.
Many Hazaras in Quetta provide services to their own communities within the enclaves; others move to other cities across Pakistan to work. Whether a Hazara can relocate strongly depends on their personal resources and family connections. In the past Hazaras were often employed in the military and public service, but few now apply for these jobs due to discrimination and fear of attacks. Since the IS attack in Mach in January 2021, Hazaras are reportedly too scared to work in the Baloch mining industry, previously an important source of income. High rates of unemployment and limited prospects have reportedly led to a sense of hopelessness among Hazara youth in Quetta.
While most Hazaras in Pakistan can obtain formal identification such as Computerised National Identity Cards (CNICs), Hazaras claim National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) officials at times cause delays for Hazaras. Hazaras have suffered lethal attacks outside the NADRA office in Quetta while trying to obtain passports and CNICs. As a result, many Hazaras do not feel safe leaving the enclaves to apply for documentation.
DFAT assesses Hazaras who live in the enclaves in Quetta face a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of impeded access to higher education, medical services, employment and affordable food. Within and outside the enclaves, Hazaras face a moderate risk of official discrimination, including by government officials and security forces, in the form of obstruction at checkpoints and denial of or delay in access to identity documentation, employment and services. DFAT assesses such discrimination reflects widespread individual prejudice rather than official policy.
DFAT assesses Hazaras in Balochistan face a high risk of violence from militants on the basis of their ethnic and sectarian identity. Outside Balochistan the risk of violence for Hazaras is moderate. Hazaras face a higher risk of violence than other Shi’a due to their distinctive appearance and segregation. Outside Balochistan, DFAT assesses Hazaras face a low risk of societal or official discrimination, but notes relocation to these areas is difficult or impossible for many.
The Tribunal commented that the country information suggests there may be economic and security ‘push factors’ which could cause the visa applicant to wish to seek to remain in Australia permanently, if granted the visa, rather than return to Pakistan within the validity period of a 12 month temporary stay on a Visitor visa.
In response, the review applicant acknowledged that the Hazara Shi’a community in Quetta face some difficulties but stated that there are many Hazara living there including her family. She stressed that she wants her mother to be able to visit to care for her and her children at a time when she will also need to support her husband following his transplant surgery.
The Tribunal acknowledged that there are very strong compassionate circumstances in this matter but indicated it also needs to be satisfied that her mother genuinely intends to visit Australia only and will depart within the validity period of the visa. The visa applicant replied that she has her husband and [child] in Pakistan as well as her house. She commented that her life is there. She said she will return to Pakistan because of her family members there.
The representative commented that he believes the visa applicant genuinely wishes to visit Australia only and will return to Pakistan. He said she wishes to be able to visit Australia again in the future. He commented that the family had been prepared to put up a security bond of $10,000 but this was not requested by the department.
Having carefully considered her personal circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant is well-settled in Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts the assurances of the visa applicant and the review applicant that she wishes to visit Australia only, wants to be able to do that again in the future, and has no intention of breaching the conditions of a Visitor visa or overstaying the visa. In this regard the Tribunal notes the review applicant had been prepared to lodge a $10,000 security bond in support of her mother’s visa application, but a security bond was never sought by the department.

The Tribunal is satisfied, therefore, that the visa applicant would comply with condition 8531 and depart Australia within the permitted stay period, if granted the visa.
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 of hearing: 20 March 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Mohammad Ajmal Malik (MARN: 5510808)