Mola Salehi (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1039

MOLA SALEHI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1039 (9 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Review Applicant:  Mr Hamid Reza Mola Salehi
Visa Applicants:  Mrs Latifeh Morteza Zadeh
Mr Sattar Mollasalehi
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2312340

Tribunal:General Member F Sneath
Place:Canberra
Date: 9 July 2025
Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas for reconsideration, in accordance with an order that the visa applicants meet the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:
·cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 09 July 2025 at 9:49am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – sponsored family stream – visiting sons and extended family – genuine temporary entrant and compliance with conditions – incentives to depart or remain – previous compliant travel to other countries for religious purposes – modest superannuation/pension and financial support from children – recent geopolitical and security situation – two sons’ irregular arrivals to Australia given little weight – age, health and availability of medical treatment – possibility that health assessments required before visa is granted – extended families in both countries and strong long-term social, religious and cultural ties in home country – offer of security bond – finely balanced factors – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 10 August 2023 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Visitor (Class FA) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicants applied for the visas on 11 July 2023. At the time the visa applications were lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with several different streams. In this case the applicants applied for the visas 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 visas, on the basis that the visa applicants did not meet cl 600.211 because there was insufficient incentive for the applicants to return to Iran.
The review applicant applied for a review of the decision on 16 August 2023. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal
The review applicant, a son of the visa applicants, appeared before the Tribunal on 12 May 2025 and 22 May 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from both visa applicants and another son of theirs who currently lives in Australia. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of interpreters in the Persian and English languages.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review and provided submissions to the Tribunal.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is 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 applicants genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to whether the applicants have complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the applicants were subject; whether the applicants intend 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 applicants seek the visas for the purposes of visiting their sons and their extended 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)).
The visa applicants have never held a substantive or bridging visa. There is therefore no evidence of non-compliance, and the Tribunal therefore gives this criterion no weight.
The Tribunal must also consider whether the visa applicants intend 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 review applicant, visa applicants and witness all gave evidence supporting the intention of the visa applicants to comply with any visa conditions. The visa applicants are of advanced age (75 and 76 respectively) and do not speak English. Information before the Tribunal is that their children in Australia will fully support the visa applicants with their living and financial expenses during the visit and records before the Tribunal suggest that the children in Australia have the capacity and means to provide that support to the visitors. The Tribunal weighs these matters in favour of the visa applicants complying with conditions 8101 and 8201.
Evidence and submissions addressed the review applicant and visa applicants’ knowledge of the conditions 8503 and 8531. The review applicant, visa applicants and witness also all gave evidence that they understood there was no entitlement for the visa applicants to apply for another substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while in Australia, and stated their intention was to return to Iran after their visit.
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).
Financial circumstances
The visa applicants gave evidence that they have sufficient pension/superannuation income to support themselves in Iran and receive support from their three children in Iran and financial support from their two children in Australia.
The visa applicants’ financial circumstances, while modest, were considered by the review applicant and visa applicants to be sufficient to sustain their lifestyle in Iran. The Tribunal is aware that the economic situation in Iran is difficult with high inflation, and with recent armed conflict affecting Iran, maintaining lifestyle will potentially become more difficult. The Tribunal notes the representative’s submission that the value of the financial support provided by sons in Australia to the visa applicants in Iran, compared to what that the same dollar value of expenditure would provide in Australia, is a positive reason for the visa applicants to return to Iran. The Tribunal finds the visa applicants financial circumstances are adequate to maintain their lifestyle in Iran. The Tribunal however gives the visa applicants financial circumstances little weight in assessing whether they intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
International travel history
The visa applicants have very limited international travel history for religious pilgrimage purposes only. There is no information to indicate that they have previously sought to visit any other country for an extended period, or to live in country other than Iran. The Tribunal gives this some positive weight in support of their intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
The Tribunal notes that the review applicant and a witness, both sons of the visa applicants, were irregular arrivals to Australia and have not returned to live in Iran. The Tribunal has carefully considered whether their circumstances of leaving Iran and not returning are relevant in determining whether the visa applicants intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
The Tribunal is conscious of the nature of its review function, the limited purpose of the visa for which the visa applicants have applied, and the specific conditions of the visa. The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that other family members have come to Australia and not returned to Iran, but has decided to give this little weight, preferring to decide this matter by giving greater weight to the contemporary and personal circumstances, as disclosed, of the visa applicants.
Visa applicants’ health
Information provided to the Tribunal is that the visa applicants suffer from some health conditions typical of persons of older age. The Tribunal was also informed that these were adequately treated and managed in the health system in Iran. There was no information available to the Tribunal that suggests either of the visa applicants suffers from any illness where treatment is unavailable in Iran. The Tribunal however notes the age of the visa applicants and that they may be required to undertake health assessments before any potential visit to Australia is approved. Therefore, the Tribunal gives the health status of the visa applicants no weight in assessing whether they intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
Family, social and cultural connections in Iran
The Tribunal notes that the visa applicants have children and extended family in both Australia and Iran. The Tribunal is advised that both visa applicants have very strong family ties with their daughters and family in Iran as well as strong social ties in Iran that assist their wellbeing. It would be difficult at their age and stage of life to develop new social connections in a new place and the visa applicants have minimal exposure to travel and life outside of their homeland of Iran. The visa applicants have lived all their lives in Iran and the Tribunal considers that their long-term family, social and cultural connections which are well established and long standing in Iran are much stronger than those to family in Australia. The Tribunal therefore gives the applicants family, social and cultural connections in Iran positive weight in assessing whether they intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
Compelling/compassionate reasons
The review applicant can travel to Iran to visit his parents, however his brother who is in Australia on a bridging visa is unable to leave Australia without risking his ability to return. There are also grandchildren and great grandchildren of the visa applicants in Australia who they would like to see them in person. The visa applicants have also never seen the lifestyle their extended family in Australia enjoys, and a visit is an opportunity to do so. The Tribunal accepts these compassionate circumstances are positive indications of the genuine nature of the proposed visit but gives them no weight in assessing whether the visa applicants intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
Security situation in Iran
There was no indication in the information available to the Tribunal, and at hearing, that the geopolitical and security situation in Iran was the impetus for the visa applicants seeking to visit Australia. However, since the hearing security circumstances have escalated, including instances of strikes on military and nuclear targets in Iran and in the city where the visa applicants live. The Tribunal notes a ceasefire is currently in place and the representative’s submissions that the situation in Iran has stabilised, and that essential services, including financial institutions, hospitals, educational institutions, and private businesses, have resumed normal operations. The representative’s submissions described the situation as ’business as usual’. The Tribunal is unable to predict whether the ceasefire and ‘business as usual’ situation will persist into the reasonably foreseeable future, and notes Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice that the situation in the region is constantly changing, there continues to be a risk of further military conflict, and the security situation could get worse with little notice.[1] Therefore, in light of the recency of security events, the Tribunal gives some negative weight to the security situation in assessing whether the visa applicants intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of the visa.
Security bond
[1] ‘Israel-Iran Conflict’, Smartraveller.gov.au (Web Page, 8 July 2025), < >
The review applicant is prepared to offer a substantial security bond. The Tribunal gives this some positive weight in assessing the visa applicants incentive to return to Iran after any permitted stay in Australia.
The matter is finely balanced. The circumstances in Iran and recent military strikes no doubt cause extreme distress and discomfort to many and weigh against an incentive to return to Iran after a permitted stay in Australia. However, the Tribunal is gives greater weight to the visa applicants’ age, strong family ties in Iran and their longstanding social, religious and cultural ties to their homeland.
The Tribunal notes that Iran is subject to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ‘Do not travel’ advice.[2] International travel to and from Iran has been disrupted, and flight cancellations and disruptions could continue with little or no notice, affecting the ability of the visa applicants to depart or return to Iran at their preferred times[3]. The Tribunal also notes that because of the visa applicants’ ages, the Department may require health review. Should the visa applicants be cleared to travel to Australia, the Tribunal notes the review applicant’s ability to pay a security bond, and the Tribunal recommends the Department consider requiring the review applicant to pay such a bond.
[2] ‘Iran Latest update’, Smartraveller.gov.au (Web Page, 9 July 2025), < >
[3] ibid
For the above reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants genuinely intend 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 applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas for reconsideration, in accordance an order that the visa applicants meet the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:
·cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Date(s) of hearing: 12 May 2025; 22 May 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Ms Azam Jafari (MARN: 1571733)