Pancarci (Migration)
[2025] ARTA 1660
•19 August 2025
Pancarci (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1660 (19 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Ugur Pancarci
Visa Applicant: Mrs Nesrin Cetin
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2315859
Tribunal:General Member F Sneath
Place:Canberra
Date: 19 August 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 19 August 2025 at 12:17pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuinely temporary entrant – financial and family ties in home country – complying with visa conditions – no previous travel outside of home country – lack of English-language proficiency – previous compliant family visits – offer of a security bond – visa applicant in good health – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.221, 600.222
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 18 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 28 August 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 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 delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl 600.211 because there were insufficient financial and family ties that would be an incentive for the visa applicant to return to Türkiye.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant was unable to appear because the time difference meant it was very early in the morning and she did not have ready access to the necessary technical facilities. The review applicant did however tell the Tribunal that, if necessary, arrangements could be made to speak with the visa applicant later. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Turkish and English languages.
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 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.
The visa applicant is a 59-year-old widow from Türkiye. She seeks the visa to visit her brother, and other family members, in Australia. At the time of the visa application, the visa applicant was planning to accompany her father on the visit and sought a visa for up to six months. The review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant now seeks to visit for a shorter time, about one month. The visa is sought for a purpose for which a visa in the Tourist stream may be granted: cl 600.221 and cl 600.222.
Compliance with previously held visas
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 Tribunal was informed that the visa applicant has never travelled outside of Türkiye, and therefore there is no evidence of any non-compliance by the visa applicant with the conditions of a previously held visa. The Tribunal therefore gives this element neutral weight.
Intention to comply with visa conditions
The Tribunal must 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(2)):
·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 told the Tribunal that he was aware of the visa conditions and that he considered the visa applicant intended to comply with them. In support of this the review applicant citied the short duration of the visa applicant’s intended visit, her absence of a professional work history (homemaker supporting her husband), her lack of English language proficiency, her strong desire to return to Türkiye after a visit to Australia for the familiar lifestyle she is comfortable with, the proximity of her two children and three grandchildren to her home, and the visa applicant’s regular support to her aging father.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that he had previously sponsored his parents’ visits to Australia in 2004 and 2008, and his father’s visit in 2023. He said that on each occasion they had complied with the conditions of their visa.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that he will financially support the visa applicant during her proposed visit to Australia. Considering this, the personal circumstances of the visa applicant, and the limited duration of the visit which the review applicant said was about one month, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant is a low risk for non-compliance.
The review applicant also advised that he was willing to pay a security bond. Information provided by the review applicant indicates that he has the means to provide a security bond and understands the consequences if the visa applicant fails to comply with visa conditions.
There is no adverse information before the Tribunal suggesting the visa applicant would not comply with the visa conditions. The Tribunal gives positive weight to these factors as indicating the visa applicant’s intention to comply with the visa conditions.
Other relevant matters
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).
Financial
The visa applicant is almost 60 years old and does not work. The review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant has never worked and that her husband had held a government job until his death in 2021. The review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant owns her residential property and receives a widow’s pension because her husband was a government worker. The review applicant said that he understands that the visa applicant lives comfortably and within her means. He does not send her any financial support to Türkiye.
The visa application indicated that the review applicant was to support all costs for the visa applicant’s visit. The review applicant confirmed that he would pay for the visa applicant’s return airfare and living expenses, and he expected that the visa applicant would bring around 3000 Euro for her own personal expenses.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the financial costs for the proposed visit will be mostly borne by the review applicant, but notes that documents before the Tribunal confirm the visa applicant’s home ownership, receipt of a pension and modest savings. The Tribunal is prepared to give the visa applicant’s financial circumstances some positive weight as an incentive to return to Türkiye.
Family ties
The review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant has two adult children and three grandchildren - aged 7, 5 and 6 months, in Türkiye. The visa applicant’s children and grandchildren live close to her and the review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant enjoys spending time with them. The review applicant also told the Tribunal that the visa applicant had encouraged their parents to move closer to her so that she could help support them in older age.
The review applicant described the support the visa applicant provides to their father, and the engagement that the visa applicant enjoys with her children and grandchildren. This includes looking after the grandchildren regularly and going on holidays with them. The Tribunal finds that this description supports that the applicant has close emotional ties to her family in Türkiye.
The review applicant also told the Tribunal that the visa applicant has a sister in Germany and three siblings (two brothers – including himself, and a sister) in Australia. The review applicant also told the Tribunal that the visa applicant has never travelled outside of Türkiye.
The Tribunal notes that the visa applicant has family ties in Australia but considers the ties to family in Türkiye are stronger and outweigh any incentive the visa applicant may have to remain in Australia. The Tribunal gives the nature of the visa applicant’s family ties in Türkiye positive weight as an incentive to return after a temporary stay in Australia.
Home country circumstances
The review applicant told the Tribunal that there were no economic, security or political issues affecting the applicant such that she would not return to her lifestyle and family in Türkiye after a visit to Australia. He told the Tribunal that the political situation in Türkiye varied depending on location, but that it was stable in the area where his sister lived. The Tribunal is prepared to accept these matters and gives them neutral weight.
Health/compassionate circumstances
The review applicant told the Tribunal that he understands that the visa applicant enjoys good health. No compelling health or other compassionate circumstances (besides the proposed general visit to see family in Australia) were identified as the impetus for the applicant’s intended visit to Australia.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, 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: 18 August 2025
Representative for the Applicant: N/A
0
0
0