Noori (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 450

NOORI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 450 (28 FEBRUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Rabiullah Noori
Visa Applicant:  Ms Zia Jan Noori
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2401196

Tribunal:Senior Member L Nicholls
Place:Sydney
Date 28 February 2025
DecisionThe Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Statement made on 28 February 2025 at 10:07am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – support during family medical treatment – managing family properties – security situation in Afghanistan – strong family ties in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.221, 600.222, 600.611
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant for the visa (the visa applicant) is a citizen of Afghanistan and is 60 years old. The applicant for review (the review applicant) is the visa applicant’s son and he is an Australian permanent resident.
The visa applicant applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa on 19 December 2023. She provided copies of identity documents, financial and bank records, the visa applicant’s property documents, the review applicant’s tenancy documents and payslips, photographs and statements.
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).
On 10 January 2024 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211 of the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant had a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of visiting her son.
The review applicant sought review on 26 January 2024. He provided a copy of a statutory declaration, recent payslips, bank statements, his family’s travel itineraries, his father’s death certificate and medical records.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also attempted to contact the visa applicant by teleconference several times during the hearing however the attempts were unsuccessful. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Pashto (Afghanistan), Pashto/Pushtu and English languages. The Tribunal gave the review applicant a further seven days to provide other evidence or submissions to support his application.
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 affirmed.
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.
Background
The review applicant is an Australian permanent resident and is 28 years old. He was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. He arrived in Australia in 2020 as the holder of partner visa. He is married with two children and his children are 5 years and 2 years old. He is a panel beater, and his wife is working in a childcare centre.
The review applicant lives in a rented house with three bedrooms.
The visa applicant is 60 years old, and her husband passed away in 2004. A translation of a death certificate in her husband’s name was provided. This document shows a date of death from illness in 2004 with the date of registration in May 2016. She lives in Kabul, and she owns her own home. She owns another property from which she receives rental income and supports herself from her rental income and remittances. She provided a copy of property documents to support this evidence. The review applicant is her only son, and he stated he does not have any brothers or sisters. He told the Tribunal the visa applicant has cousins who live near her home in Kabul.
Purpose and duration of visit
In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting her son. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.221 and cl 600.222.
The review applicant stated that the visa applicant is seeking to visit Australia for about three to six months. He stated he is unwell and has a canula in his arm. His wife is due to have knee surgery and he would like the visa applicant to visit to help his wife after the surgery. He provided medical documents which show that his wife has a meniscal tear in her knee and her specialist recommends surgery. The review applicant also provided medical documents dated November 2024 which show he has weakness in his left eye and arm. He was diagnosed with a possible longstanding neurological cyst and advised to follow up with a neurologist and attend the emergency department of his local hospital if his weakness became worse.
The review applicant stated the visa applicant would stay with him in his house during the proposed visit. The review applicant stated that she has enough money to support herself through the visit.
Compliance with conditions of last substantive visa.
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 previously travelled to Australia and thus there is no evidence of non-compliance with conditions of the last substantive visa held, or any subsequent bridging visas.
Intention to comply with 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
·     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 stated his mother would not work or study and would comply with all the conditions which any proposed visa would be subject.
Other relevant matters
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).
The review applicant stated the visa applicant has travelled outside Afghanistan to Iran for biometric examinations. She has not otherwise travelled abroad.
In the representative’s written submissions, he stated the review applicant has travelled to Afghanistan three times since 2023 and has spent a large amount of money on airfares and living expenses. He stated it was not safe for the family to travel to a country affected by war for the last 40 years and it would be easier for the visa applicant to visit the family in Australia.
At the Tribunal hearing the review applicant stated that in the last 18 months he has travelled three times to visit the visa applicant. On two occasions he travelled alone and on one occasion he took his wife and children to spend time with the visa applicant in Kabul. He would prefer not to take his wife and children on future visits as he considers that it is unsafe for children to visit. His representative provided a media article which related to the security situation for children in Afghanistan.
The review applicant’s representative made written submissions that the visa applicant has strong connections to her local community, including her remaining relatives. He also stated that she has a profound emotional connection to her son, daughter in law and grandchildren in Australia. She experiences loneliness and longs for her grandchildren. With respect to incentives to return to Afghanistan he referred to the visa applicant’s siblings and her responsibility to look after her husband’s properties.
At the Tribunal hearing the review applicant stated that his mother is a widow and lives in her own home. She has cousins in Afghanistan, but he stated that otherwise she does not have any close family members in Afghanistan.
In the written submissions the representative states that the visa applicant does not work and depends on rental income and remittances sent by the review applicant. He stated that women in Afghanistan are mostly dependent on fathers, brothers or husbands and financial stability supports this practice. The visa applicant owns property she inherited from her husband.
At the Tribunal hearing the review applicant stated that his mother has sufficient rental income to support herself in Afghanistan and to visit Australia. She provided a copy of her property documents to support this evidence. The review applicant also provided evidence of his income and employment details in Australia.
The review applicant has indicated that he is willing to provide a monetary security to sponsor the visa applicant’s visit.
The Tribunal asked the review applicant whether were other reasons which would indicate that the visa applicant has a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of a visit. He stated that her intention was to visit her family, see his house and how he was living and return at the end of the visit.
In the written submissions the representative stated that the family are Sunnis and not from any Islamic minority in Afghanistan and things were peaceful at present. At the hearing the Tribunal put it to the review applicant that the security environment and situation for women in Afghanistan was poor and these factors may encourage the visa applicant to seek to remain in Australia rather than returning at the end of the visit. He stated that his mother would not be happy in Australia as she would be lonely at home while his wife and he were at work all day and his children were in childcare. He stated she has her home in Afghanistan and would want to return to her home.
With respect to the economic situation in Afghanistan the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) noted in 2022 that the Afghan economy was in crisis[1] and close to collapse having generally been reliant on overseas aid. There were some signs of a slight economic revival in 2023; deflation as well as favourable weather conditions for food production led to price reductions in food items, and lower living costs eased the pressure on households. Economic activity has stagnated, however, and the population has been facing poverty, food insecurity and unemployment. According to the World Bank, a longer period of deflation might also contract the economy, which would in turn increase poverty and unemployment.[2]
[1] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 p.2.8.
[2] 'Afghanistan: Country Focus (November 2024)', European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), 11 November 2024, pp.67-68,
Further the situation for women in Afghanistan is poor, regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic status[3]. The UN noted in 2023 that women face increasingly restrictive measures[4].
[3] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 p 3.19.
[4] 'Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan - Update I', United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 14 February 2023, p.2,
The review applicant’s representative stated that he wished to rely on his written submissions. The Tribunal asked him if he wished to make submissions on those matters which the Tribunal had identified that may act as an incentive for the visa applicant to seek to remain in Australia, that is, her strong family ties in Australia and the current political and social situation in Afghanistan. He stated that at her age, the visa applicant had an emotional attachment to her life in Afghanistan. He stated that the review applicant came to Australia as a legal entrant and had discussed with his representative the prospects of sponsoring the visa applicant for a contributory parent visa in the future. At the moment the visa applicant was only seeking to visit her family in Australia.
Assessment
The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the visa applicant has a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of a visit with her son and his family.
The Tribunal considers that the evidence indicates that the visa applicant has significant family ties to her only son, his wife and her grandchildren which would be a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia past the period of any permitted stay. The review applicant stated that she would not want to remain in Australia indefinitely because she would be lonely while he, his wife and children were away from the home during the working week. However, the evidence indicates that the applicant stated she is lonely in Afghanistan and the evidence the review applicant has given is that she lives by herself in her own home. Even if she were at home by herself during the work week in Australia, she would have the company of her son’s family during the evenings and weekends.
There is no evidence that the visa applicant has other family ties in Afghanistan which might act as an incentive for her to return at the end of a visit. The review applicant stated that she has cousins in Afghanistan but gave little detail about her family connections and how this might encourage her to return. Further the review applicant’s submissions indicate that he has considered the possibility of sponsoring the visa applicant for a contributory parent visa in the future which indicates that the visa applicant does intend to move to Australia to be close to her son and his family. This is not consistent with the evidence that she would be lonely in Australia and not seek to remain.
The Tribunal has also taken account of the poor economic and social situation for women in Afghanistan and considers that this would also act as a strong incentive for the visa applicant to remain in Australia past the period of any permitted stay. While it accepts that the visa applicant owns property and is financially supported through rental income and remittances, the country information indicates the economic situation is poor and unlikely to improve soon. It accepts that she is a Sunni and not part of any minority group in Afghanistan, but the country information indicates that the social and economic situation for women in Afghanistan is poor, regardless of ethnicity or socio economic status.
The Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence of non-compliance with previous visa conditions and accepts that the visa applicant would not seek to work or study in Australia. It also accepts that the review applicant is prepared to provide a monetary security for the visa applicant’s visit. There is no adverse migration history which might suggest that the visa applicant would not comply with visa conditions, but overall, the Tribunal considers other factors indicate that the applicant would seek to remain in Australia and not return at the end of any permitted stay.
The review applicant has provided evidence that he and his wife have medical issues and would be assisted if the visa applicant were able to visit to help them through periods of need. He also stated that he prefers that his family not visit Afghanistan due to safety and security concerns as well as the expense for the family. The Tribunal accepts that these are legitimate reasons for the review applicant to seek that the visa applicant visits, however, these do not overcome the Tribunal’s finding that the visa applicant does not have a genuine intention to stay temporarily.
Conclusion
For the above reasons the Tribunal is not 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 not met.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.]
Date(s) of hearing 28 November 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Asad A Syed Muhammad