Li (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1477

LI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1477 (8 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Ye Li
Visa Applicant:  Mr Haixing Li
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2317085

Tribunal:General Member J Wilson
Place:Canberra
Date: 8 July 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 – financial resources – potential future family visits – significant business and family interests in home country – multiple compliant international visits – offer of a security bond – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.221, 600.222, 600.611
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 20 September 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 14 September 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 Tourist 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 visa application was refused on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211 because the delegate formed the view that the applicant did not have adequate employment, economic, family or other commitments that would act as a sufficient incentive for him to return to China at the conclusion of the visa.
The review applicant and visa applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video conference on 3 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. Both applicants joined the hearing together, virtually, from China. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the hearing.
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 visa applicant is an elderly male Chinese citizen of 71 years-of-age. He is married and is ordinarily domiciled in China with his wife. His son, the review applicant, is an Australian Permanent Resident and businessman who lives between Victoria, Australia and China. The review applicant’s wife and 18-year-old son live permanently in Australia.
At the hearing, the visa applicant gave oral evidence that he seeks permission to enter Australia as a visitor for a short period, possibly not more than 20 days, to visit his family who are resident in Australia, and particularly his grandson. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Tourist stream may be granted: cl 600.221 and cl 600.222.
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)).
The visa applicant gave oral evidence that he travelled to Australia over twenty years ago. He said he complied with his visa conditions. The Tribunal requested the visa applicant’s movement records from the Department of Home Affairs (Department). The Department could not provide any recent electronic movement records for the visa applicant. It is possible that given the length of time that has passed, those movement records have not been digitised. For that reason, the Tribunal has not applied any negative weighting to this criterion.
Does the visa applicant intend to comply with the 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 600.611(3)):
·8101 – must not work in Australia
·8201 – must not engage in study or training in Australia for more than 3 months.
In the visa applicant’s favour, much of the evidence points to him having an intention to comply with the respective visa conditions. At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant whether he intended to work in Australia. The applicant responded with humour, stating ‘no’ and he noted that at 71 years of age and having no English language ability, he would find it exceedingly difficult to find employment in Australia. With the greatest of respect to the visa applicant, the Tribunal tends to agree. When asked if he intended to undertake training in Australia, he said ‘no’.
The Tribunal explained the applicable visa conditions to the applicant, and he said he understood and would comply. The Tribunal also explained the consequences of non-compliance to his son. Both the review applicant and visa applicant were adamant the visa applicant would comply – and stated they understood the importance of maintaining a positive immigration record in Australia, so they can travel between Australia and China to visit family with relative ease. The visa applicant said he could not understand why the visa was refused, or why his previous visitor visa applications were also refused.
The Tribunal tested whether the visa applicant would need to work in Australia and based on the evidence provided has found he would not. Both the review applicant and visa applicant claim to be involved in the running of a large family business with a net value that exceeds 100million RMB. The review applicant gave oral evidence that he is the Chairman of the Board of the group of companies and that he visits Australia for weeks at a time, as his business schedule permits, to spend time with his wife and son in Australia. The Tribunal has reviewed the review applicant’s movement records and finds his account of his travel consistent with the Department’s records.
The visa applicant gave evidence that he is employed as the General Manager for a subsidiary of the group of companies, Wujiang Wanshang Information Technology Service Co Ltd, where he performs advisory services. He claims he has a team of people who work to him and who manage the day-to-day operations, such that he holds a senior leadership position where he is involved in decision-making and client relationships only. The claim is supported by an employment contract provided to the Tribunal. The employment contract, the oral evidence and financial statements all consistently provide that the visa applicant receives a base salary of 8,000RMB per month from his employment, however financial records and clarifying oral evidence provided to the Tribunal also highlights that the visa applicant draws other income from dividends and the selling of investments. Additionally, based on recent a financial statement provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal considers that the visa applicant has savings in one account to a value of approximately AUD183,000. Accordingly, the Tribunal can see no reason why the applicant would need to work or undertake training in Australia to supplement his own financial resources. There is no evidence to suggest that the visa applicant will be doing any type of business in Australia.
Additionally, the review applicant has indicated that the visa applicant will reside in their family home in Victoria, which is owned outright, for the duration of the visit - and would be available to cover any expenses required of him. At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the review applicant to provide a recent bank statement as evidence of access to funds. In post-hearing correspondence, the review applicant provided the Tribunal with a bank statement from his wife’s Australian bank account dated 3 July 2025 highlighting she has a balance exceeding AUD500,000 available. He did not provide reasons why he did not provide his own bank account, however owing to the nature of his wife’s primary residence in Australia, and his offshore business commitments, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the couple’s finances in Australia may exist in the review applicant’s wife’s name. Given the documentary evidence on file, the Tribunal is prepared to accept the bank statement offered is the review applicant’s wife’s statement and considers that those funds will be made available to the visa applicant, should it be required.
For all these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant has more than adequate financial means to support himself in Australia without needing to work, and that he has sufficiently demonstrated an intention to comply with the applicable visa conditions.
Other relevant circumstances
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). Relevantly, the visa applicant has significant business, family and personal interests in China which act as a sufficient incentive for him to return.
With respect to any risk of overstaying, while it is difficult to assess a person’s true intentions, in this case the Tribunal considers the risk of the visa applicant overstaying to be low. The Tribunal found the visa applicant and review applicant to be credible witnesses. The visa applicant declared a prior historical conviction in his visa application and reiterated that information in the hearing. He did not seek to hide from those past issues or conceal any information. The Tribunal does not consider those convictions are a relevant consideration as to whether the visa applicant intends a genuine temporary stay in Australia.
Both the review applicant and visa applicant emphasised that owing to their business commitments, the visa applicant could not be absent from China for more than a few weeks at a time. The review applicant also indicated that he would likely accompany his father to Australia although they would not stay for more than a few weeks. Having regard to the review applicant’s prior movement records, which demonstrates a record of frequent short trips into Australia, the Tribunal is prepared to accept this to be true.
The visa applicant is seeking the ability to visit his grandson and appeared to be genuine in his desire to spend quality time with his family in Australia. The Tribunal is confident he understood that the consequences of breaching his visa would mean he could be prevented from returning to Australia again in the future.
The visa applicant claims to own multiple properties in China and shares. He has provided proof of ownership for a primary dwelling. The Tribunal considers this adds some incentive to return to China.
The review applicant also gave oral evidence that the visa applicant has travelled internationally for both tourist purposes and business purposes in the past. He noted his father had travelled with him to Vietnam recently, to contemplate establishing a factory there together. The visa applicant also disclosed prior international travel to the United States of America (over 20 years ago), and more recently to France, Germany and Hungary. The visa applicant said he has always complied with his visa conditions. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest otherwise.
The visa applicant also noted that his friends and family are primarily based in China, and that while he likes Australia, he considers life in Australia is too unfamiliar for him to consider spending any length of time here. Having regard to his age and personal circumstances, the Tribunal accepts this to be true.
The representative also added that the review applicant’s parents are eligible for parent visas, so should they really want to be living in Australia they could already be doing so. The representative suggested that this factor is also a consideration that supports a finding that the visa applicant is intending to visit Australia on a short-stay temporary basis only.
Security Bond
The Tribunal took evidence from the review applicant to the effect that he would be willing to lodge a security bond if requested by the delegate. He gave oral evidence that if it was required, he could offer a bond in excess of AUD$100,000, and stated he understood it would be ‘confiscated’ should his father not comply with his visa conditions.
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: 3 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mrs Grace Xie (MARN: 0211694)