Poni (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2136

PONI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 2136 (8 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Ms Lynda Agnes Poni
Visa Applicant:  Mr Kwori Francis Bungu Duku
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2317962

Tribunal:General Member B Gogarty
Place:Hobart
Date: 8 August 2025
Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Statement made on 08 August 2025 at 5:25pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – sponsored family stream – visiting sister and other family members – family separated during war, with most siblings coming to Australia – applicant born and remaining family members living in neighbouring country as non-citizens – inconsistent information – partner and young children not listed in visa application – usual place and country of residence, employment and property ownership – previous compliant travel, also sponsored by sister – no appearance at hearing by applicant – time zone differences and internet connectivity – advance notice and previous adjournment to accommodate family needs – review applicant’s honest evidence and offer of security bond – country information – country-wide crisis conditions – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231
CASES
Ammar v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 376
Huang v MICMA [2025] FCFC2G 1156
MIBP v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326
SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) (2006) 228 CLR 152
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), to refuse the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa. The visa applicant is a citizen of South Sudan. The review applicant is his sister and sponsored his visa application. For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the visa.
Procedural History
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 17 August 2023. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, with several different streams. In this case the applicant sought to satisfy the primary criteria for 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.
On 4 October 2023 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa on the basis that they were not satisfied the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. The review applicant sought review of that decision on 6 November 2023.
The applicants were represented by a lawyer in relation to the application and review.
On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant, via their representative, requesting further information relevant to their review application. The review applicant did not reply to that request, but, following a request for an adjournment, provided a brief outline of submissions which provided some of the information requested. The remainder of the information sought by the Tribunal was presented at a hearing.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The visa applicant did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal. In a pre-hearing response to the hearing invitation the review applicant stated that the visa applicant was “unable to attend the hearing due to time difference and telephone network issues”. The hearing was held at 14:00 – 16:00 Australian Eastern Standard Time, which equates to 6:00-8:00 Central African Time.
At the conclusion of the hearing the applicants’ representative requested further time to make post-hearing submissions and present further documentary evidence to the Tribunal. Those submissions, along with a bundle of documents were received by the Tribunal on 5 August 2025
Background
The review applicant is an Australian citizen who lives in Perth, Western Australia. She is married and has three dependent children. She also has four siblings who are Australian citizens and three who are South Sudanese citizens.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that she arrived in Australia as a child with her (now-Australian) siblings in 2005 on a humanitarian visa. She explained that her family had been displaced by the war in Sudan and cut off from each other, which is why some of her family were able to come to Australia and some were not. All her family have now had the opportunity to reunite at various times. The review applicant’s parents are both deceased, and her mother passed away recently, which was the reason the original hearing for the review had been postponed.
The review applicant works as a registered nurse and her husband works in the mining industry. Her evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, is that she and her family live a comfortable and financially secure life.
The visa applicant is a 33-year-old South Sudanese citizen. He is in a significant relationship and has two children. According to birth certificates provided to the Tribunal his partner and children, who are 4 and 1 years old, are also South Sudanese citizens. However, the review applicant gave evidence that the visa applicant’s nuclear family live in Uganda. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
The status of the relationship between the visa applicant and his partner was inconsistent across the evidence. In the original application the visa applicant declared his relationship as “Never Married”, did not identify any other form of significant relationship, nor state that he was a father of any children. His status as a father and ‘husband’ (indicating he was married) first appeared in pre-hearing submissions made on 17 July 2025. At the hearing the review applicant referred to the visa applicant’s partner as his ‘wife’. However, at the hearing the representative stated that, at all material times, the visa applicant has been in a ‘de facto’ relationship, and in post-hearing submissions the representative repeated that the relationship is a de-facto one.
In post-hearing submissions the representative explained that the visa applicant “did not intend to omit [the family] information from the department” and that the “visa applicant instructs that he was of the view that it is only his information was required given that he is the person who intends to travel to Australia without his family”. The Tribunal notes that the form specifically asked the question: “Does the applicant have any members of their family unit not travelling to Australia who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents?” to which the visa applicant answered “yes” and listed two sisters as living in South Sudan. The representative was also listed as the visa applicant’s representative and the authorised recipient in the form, and the application was submitted from the representative’s email address indicating that it was at least in part reviewed and prepared with assistance from the representative. However, the Tribunal accepts based on the documentary evidence submitted in the post-hearing bundle, that the visa applicant, at all relevant times, has been a father and in a significant relationship with the mother of his children.
In post-hearing submissions the representative explained: “The [visa] applicant was born and raised in Uganda and have [sic] lived there for more than 29 years. Except for the sponsor who is in Australia, the applicant’s entire family and friends are all in Uganda.” The original application also listed the visa applicant’s residential address as being in Uganda and this address was confirmed to the Tribunal by the representative on 5 June 2025. Post-hearing materials were also presented which the Tribunal accepts as evidence that the visa applicant owns property in Uganda. However, other evidence across the record indicated the visa applicant spends substantial time in South Sudan. Examples include:
·In the original application the visa applicant’s usual country of residence (as distinct from his stated “residential address”) was identified as “South Sudan”.
·At the hearing the review applicant also told the Tribunal that the visa applicant visited his mother in Uganda but that: “He is the one with his family in South Sudan”.
·In the representative’s pre-hearing submissions, it was stated: “The Visa Applicant resides and works in South Sudan at Pager High School in Juba [South Sudan].”
·Various records about the Visa Applicant’s employment identified the visa applicant as working in South Sudan.
·The visa applicant and representative spoke about the area in which the Visa applicant lived in South Sudan as being generally safe and close to Uganda should troubles arise.
The Tribunal is unable to make a definitive finding about where the visa applicant lives based on the various inconsistencies across the evidence. The Tribunal relies upon the available documentary evidence indicating that the visa applicant works and has siblings in South Sudan, but his nuclear family live in Uganda where he maintains a residence. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant’s evidence that the visa applicant has historically spent considerable time in Uganda to care for his mother and nuclear family. Given that, and the other available evidence, the Tribunal accepts the visa applicant has strong familial and friendship networks in Uganda and continues to maintain a regular presence there.
In the original application the visa applicant claimed to have worked at Juba Proper International College in Juba, South Sudan and provided documentary records to this effect. In pre-hearing submissions to the review, the representative submitted that the visa applicant “is currently employed as a non-Teaching staff at Pager High School in Juba, South Sudan.” Documentary records identifying Pager High School as the visa applicant’s employer were included with those submissions. At the hearing the review applicant said that the visa applicant had worked at the same organisation as a supplies officer since 2018, which preceded the date of the original application. In post-hearing submissions the representative explained as follows:
“On the visa application submitted on 17 August 2023 by [sic] the visa application [sic] indicated that he is employed as an office Stationery manager/person art [sic] Juba Proper International College. However, on the letter of Recommendation and payslip, the school’s name is r [sic] High School.
The visa application instructs that Proper International College and Pager High School are the same school and under the same ownership. Therefore, the visa applicant submits that the two schools are the same school.”
No other documentary evidence was provided in support of that claim. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant is presently employed in an administrative capacity at an educational institution in Juba, South Sudan.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant owns property in South Sudan. In post-hearing submissions the representative explained: “culturally, the visa applicant is the only remaining heir remaining male child the inherit the family assets specifically land in South Sudan which is passed on from one generation to another [sic]”. The representative also submitted a bundle of photographs to the Tribunal of what appears to be various property transfer documents taken from a hand-held device. No reference to these was made in submissions and the photos were unlabelled and had no other schedule or index to describe their meaning or relevance. Upon review, the photographs appear to be taken from a mobile device. The documents shown in the images are predominantly handwritten agreements in English, which appear to record the transfer of sale of property to the visa applicant. One handwritten document bears the name of “Kihura Village”, which is in Uganda. The only typeset and printed document is a Ugandan land sale agreement in favour of the review applicant. All the documents refer to transfers in ‘shillings’, which is Ugandan currency, not South Sudanese, which uses South Sudanese Pounds (and subunits of piastres). The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant owns immovable property in Uganda and may be entitled to certain property in South Sudan by virtue of customary inheritance law.
The visa applicant visited Australia in June 2016. The review applicant stated that she was the sponsor for that visit. The departmental record indicates that the visa applicant departed Australia before the visa expired and records no breaches of the visa conditions.
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 visa applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the visa applicant was subject; whether the visa 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 his family in Australia. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
Previous 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 previously visited Australia in 2016. The Tribunal is satisfied that he complied with the conditions of his visa on that visit. This history, considered in isolation, weighs in favour of the visa applicant. However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant’s circumstances have changed substantially since 2016 when he last visited Australia. Consideration of the effect of those changes on the weighting given to this positive factor are set out in the assessment of cl 600.211(c) below.
Intention to comply with visa conditions
Sub-clause cl 600.211(b) requires that the Tribunal 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 Tribunal notes that there is no bright line separating out the consideration of specific personal, country or other relevant factors into each sub-clause of cl 600.211, particularly as they relate to the assessment of genuine intention. That is, what might be considered ‘other relevant matters’ under sub-clause (c) may be relevant to the assessment of intention to comply with the relevant conditions under sub-clause (b).[1]
[1] Ammar v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2019] FCCA 376, [42]-[43] (Mercuri J),
The review applicant assured the Tribunal that the visa applicant would comply with these conditions, and offered a substantial bond indicating her personal belief that he would not breach any visa he was granted. The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant’s evidence was given honestly and with conviction. However, "it is a matter for the Tribunal to consider whether an applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the visa would be subject".[2] Assurances about the intentions of a close sibling and sponsored family member, however genuinely held, have limited probative value in the circumstances.
[2] Huang v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCFC2G 1156, [23] (Liveris J).
While the visa applicant did not attend the hearing, the representative made post hearing submissions stating:
“The applicant submits she [sic] will comply with all immigration laws and conditions of every visa they have been granted. She [sic] has never had a visa cancelled before and never been to Australia.
The visa Applicant is unlikely overstay in Australia or being [sic] removed or excluded from Australia.”
The Tribunal takes the reference to the visa applicant to be the visa applicant, despite the misgendering, and, in the context of other submissions made on behalf of the visa applicant to have been a statement made on instruction to the representative. Accepting that, the Tribunal places little weight on a post hoc statement of intent expressed through a third party given that the genuineness or credibility of a person’s stated intentions is most appropriately tested at an oral hearing.[3] The absence of the visa applicant from the hearing deprived the Tribunal of the opportunity to undertake such an assessment.
[3] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326, 349 (Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ)
The Tribunal acknowledges it was early in the morning in the East Africa Time Zone in which South Sudan and Uganda are located. However, the hearing had been scheduled in an afternoon timeslot in Australia to ensure it was not entirely unreasonable for the visa applicant to attend. The Tribunal also acknowledges that the networking issues in South Sudan may be a factor, but notes the various evidence put before the Tribunal that the visa applicant spends substantial time in Uganda where services are much better. The parties had advanced notice of the hearing, and indeed had asked for a previous hearing to be adjourned to accommodate family needs. The applicants were also represented.
Based on all the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant could have made his way to a place where network connectivity would not have been an issue. The Tribunal finds that the non-attendance was a choice, although it makes no finding about the motives for that choice. To be clear, the Tribunal makes no adverse inference about the non-attendance itself, nor does it make findings about the credibility of representations about the visa applicant’s intentions conveyed to the Tribunal on the materials or in the hearing. However, given that the visa applicant did not attend the hearing to explain his intentions, those things are given neutral weighting, and the Tribunal must look elsewhere for objective evidence of the genuineness of intention.
The Tribunal considers that Ammar v MIA is relevant to the present matter. In that case the Tribunal considered that:[4]
“a range of factors that indicate that the visa applicant may not have a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia and may not comply with the condition not to remain in Australia after any period of permitted stay. This is due to the lack of permanence of the applicant’s status in [a third country of residence] where he lives and works; his established history of working away from home, his financial commitments to a growing family, his age, his occupation … [sibling’s circumstances] in Australia … as well as the situation in his home country”.
[4] Ammar, note 1 (Mercuri J).
Mercuri J accepted that, in assessing the relevant facts this way “the tribunal was applying the correct test” when it considered whether these various factors would result in “the visa applicant being ‘tempted’ to perceive better economic opportunities in Australia” particularly in light of the circumstances “in the applicant’s home country or in his country of residence” that may serve to “‘tempt’ the applicant to … breach [their] visa conditions”.[5]
[5] Ibid [47].

In the present case the visa applicant on appears to live between countries, working in South Sudan but residing for family and social purposes in Uganda where neither he, nor his family are citizens. That indicates a general non-permanence in both relevant countries and serves to highlight the economic, social and security challenges he may face in his country of origin.
At the time of the hearing and this decision, the entirety of South Sudan is listed on a DFAT permanent “red alert” listing (sometimes referred to as a “red notice”) which directs Australians not to travel to South Sudan (explicitly including Juba) for any reason.[6] DFAT cites extreme risks of civil unrest, armed conflict, crime, kidnapping, landmines and poor infrastructure. According to DFAT and other national country assessment bodies,[7] the security, political, economic and governance situation in South Sudan has been deteriorating since 2019 (which is when Australia placed sanctions on the country due to breaches of peace agreements),[8] while at the same time the country is beset by environmental and humanitarian crises.
[6] DFAT South Sudan Travel Advice & Safety | Smartraveller (updated 06 May 2025),
[7] i.e. see UK About Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office red notice for South Sudan (April 2025) DFAT South Sudan Sanctions 2019 ; see also UK Statement to UN Security Council “The UK is deeply concerned at recent political tensions and increased fighting across South Sudan” The UK is deeply concerned at recent political tensions and increased fighting across South Sudan” >
In March 2025 the UN Commission on Human Rights Sudan issued an alert over the rapidly escalating crisis in the country given the intensification of violence and “actions that increase civilian vulnerability – indiscriminate attacks, arbitrary detentions, and foreign intervention”.[9] Separately, in the same month, the Secretary-General of the United Nations declared the country to be facing “a security emergency, political upheaval, humanitarian catastrophe, displacement crisis, economic collapse and a severe funding shortfall – all at once”, warning that “half the population is severely food insecure… whilethree out of four people require humanitarian assistance”.[10] More recent reports near the date of the hearing indicate that the country situation had not changed and the entire country faces multiple overlapping crises.[11]
[9] UN News “UN rights body sounds the alarm over South Sudan crisis” UN News “‘Perfect storm’ in South Sudan demands urgent action, says Guterres”
[11] UN News “Food lifeline fading for millions in South Sudan hit by conflict and climate shocks” >
When the country information was raised at the hearing the review applicant and representative sought to downplay its relevance to the visa applicant’s particular circumstances. However, the Tribunal considers that the objective evidence before it does not support that assessment as the correct or preferable one.
The objective evidence before the Tribunal is that the visa applicant’s family all live in Uganda, and he spends considerable time in that country. The review applicant’s direct evidence at the hearing is that the primary reason the visa applicant stays in South Sudan is to work there to support his family financially. The Tribunal takes this to mean that the visa applicant is entitled to work in South Sudan as a citizen of that country but not Uganda. The representative, in post-hearing submissions also acknowledged that the visa applicant’s employment in South Sudan ensures that he “can provide to his family who are living in Uganda currently”, and that:
“The visa applicant instructs that even though he works in Juba South Sudan, he preferred the department of immigration to send letters to be sent to Uganda where his de facto partner stays instead of South Sudan. South Sudan currently has underdeveloped road infrastructure.
such [sic] as the postal services due the impassable roads and logistic [sic]. His de factor [sic] [Name Omitted] stays with the children in Kampala Uganda, and it is easier to receive letters/parcels than in South Sudan.”
The Tribunal puts significant weight on the visa applicant’s apparent choice to place his family out of the country that they are all citizens in. The Tribunal also notes that the applicants’ mother lived in Uganda until her recent death. The Tribunal also puts weight on the review applicant’s admission about the lack of infrastructure, services and transport corridors. The Tribunal also notes that a reason for non-attendance at the hearing was poor network infrastructure, and an inference from the representative that (assuming the visa applicant actually was in South Sudan at the time), travelling to a place with better connectivity in the early morning may generate serious risks: “Yes, that is a risk, but those risks normally occur during nights in terms of what [is] famously known in South Sudan as unknown gunmen … who will be robbing people on the roads and in other known places … but [only] for a certain time of the night, say maybe from 9:00 PM or 10:00 PM up until … [the], early hours of the morning”.
At the hearing the representative also sought to assure the Tribunal that Juba is safe – despite the DFAT red alert applying to that area of the country as well as all others, arguing as follows:
“I'm not disputing what the country information is saying for Australia and the UK, but that is from the outside view of how the citizens themselves, they are looked at the situation themselves. So, I would say the risk is minimum for the citizens who are staying there. Like [the visa applicant who] I know has been living there since his birth and who’s not run away. If he were to take a refuge, it's a short distant walking or travelled by a car into Uganda … which is quite easy for them to get away if they're tribal clashes.”
The obvious problem with this argument is that it contradicts the other evidence about the visa applicant living significant amounts of time in Uganda already and the express post hearing submission that the visa applicant was “born and raised in Uganda” and has lived there for nearly three decades. That would suggest that the visa applicant and presumably his parents chose to take refuge in another country and that he continues to do so for his family today. Even if that were not the case, the ability to escape a country and seek refuge across its borders to avoid serious risks do not connote the safety of the country at all; rather it emphasises its lack of safety and instability for those who live within its borders.
Similar problems arise with the various submissions made by the review applicant and the economic and familial balance favouring the visa applicant returning to South Sudan over staying in Australia. At the hearing the review applicant gave evidence that the visa applicant would not be induced to breach the conditions of his visa because of the comfort and economic stability of his life in South Sudan and the lower cost of living in that country. The representative separately submitted to the Tribunal: “yes, that is a great incentive working here in Australia and getting more money than what he's getting in South Sudan [but] …. he's more comfortable staying in South Sudan”.
Following the hearing the representative made submissions that customary inheritance law in South Sudan passed property to the oldest male heir and noted that the visa applicant meets that description. The submissions did not, however, specifically state the visa applicant owned property in South Sudan, nor were any documentary records provided to that affect.
What little reliable evidence can be gleaned from across the record indicates that the visa applicant’s costs of living are in fact very different than what was presented at the hearing. The place of comfort for the visa applicant is Uganda, not South Sudan. The visa applicant’s recorded property interests are in Uganda, and while the Tribunal is willing to accept that he may be entitled to property in South Sudan, it has significant doubts about whether that property is being used for anything other than accommodating him while he works there.
Even accepting the visa applicant may inherit or has inherited land in South Sudan, the Tribunal is not satisfied that property serves as an economic inducement to return there. That is because he still chooses to place his family in another country and to spend what time he can in another country than that land is located when he is not working. The fact that the visa applicant must travel to another country to financially support his family to live in (presumably on his land in) Uganda indicates that property is not a substantial inducement to remain there either.
The only record of property ownership presented to the Tribunal relates to land in Uganda. Determining the weight to give to that record is complicated by fact that the applicant and representative referencing South Sudanese property when they spoke of the economic and immovable factors favouring return at the hearing. No attempt, either during or after the hearing was made to explain the relevance or importance of the Ugandan land to the visa applicant or why it acted as an incentive for the applicant to depart Australia after a visit here. The Tribunal is willing to accept that the visa applicant’s family benefits from that property given they live in Uganda – even in the absence of submissions to that effect –and that the visa applicant does the same whenever he is in that country. However, that does not alter the fact the visa applicant has had to work in another country from where that land is located since 2018. Nor does it address the underlying uncertainty about the use and enjoyment of the land he and his family can enjoy as non-citizens. The Tribunal gives positive but limited weight to the land titles in Uganda and does not consider that they are a compelling factor in the circumstances.
Nor is the Tribunal convinced that the visa applicant’s cost of living in the circumstances are demonstrably better in South Sudan than they would be in Australia given that he must commute over 600km each way (a 24-hour round trip, according to Google Maps) between his work and his family home. Practically that would mean that he would ordinarily have to support his own cost of living in South Sudan while he is working there, and separately the cost of living of his young family in Uganda. That says nothing about the added cost and stress of such substantial commutes on the whole family, through what is an unstable and high-risk conflict zone.
The fact that the visa applicant has worked in South Sudan since 2018 despite placing his family elsewhere also suggests that he does not have security of residence or employment in that second country. In his original application the visa applicant acknowledged he did not hold another citizenship, and no evidence was provided to suggest he or his family have the right to reside or work in Uganda. The birth certificates for the visa applicant’s children are accepted by the Tribunal as evidence that all his nuclear family are South Sudanese, and therefore non-citizens of their country of residence. That makes them vulnerable to changing circumstances in their country of residence. The Tribunal also notes that while the older of the children was born in South Sudan, the younger was born in Uganda, which when considered against the country information compounds the perceptions of a deteriorating situation in the family’s country of origin which they have been removed from.
The overall picture presented by the evidence is one in which there is little stability or permanence in the visa applicant or his family’s circumstances in either their country of origin or their country of residence. It is apparent that the visa applicant’s itinerancy is the result of needing to work in South Sudan because he must, not because it is desirable to do so. That is most clearly evidenced by the fact that he does not bring his family with him when he goes there. Conversely, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant enjoys a degree of permanency and security in Uganda where he and his family are non-citizens. That is perhaps most unfortunately evidenced by the very fact he must leave his family behind to travel into a red-zoned country to work. It is also apparent that the visa applicant must be away from his family for substantial periods of time to work and that he is willing to travel to a different country from the one they live in to support them. Considered together these factors indicate that the current circumstances of insecurity would produce a very real “temptation” (borrowing from the judgment of Ammar) for the visa applicant to stay in a place which, on any measure is more stable and secure for him and his growing family, particularly if there is a clear pathway for him to bring them there permanently.
Most of the visa applicant’s family siblings now live in Australia. In his sister’s case that lifestyle is one of relative stability, security and success. The facts indicate the only reason the visa applicant did not also move to Australia on a humanitarian basis in 2005 is that he was cut off from his siblings during the Sudanese conflict.
The Tribunal has great sympathy for the review applicant who gave evidence of the closeness she has to her brother the visa applicant and her desire to have him with her in Australia, like any other Australian citizen would expect to be able to do. Neither applicant’s histories nor the current situation in South Sudan is their fault despite its profound effect on their lives. However, the Tribunal must properly apply the law to the evidence that is put before it, which includes the necessarily very clear inducement that a stable, secure and close family in Australia objectively generates.
While the cost of living in Australia limits the purchasing power of any income here for those without support, the visa applicant may be tempted to work and send Australian income to his family in Uganda if it were available to him to have onshore family support for food and lodging. Even the minimum Australian monthly wage would, if not affected by other financial commitments, have more purchasing power in Uganda than a relatively low-income clerical wage (around A$240 month), which the visa applicant currently earns in South Sudan. That is particularly the case given he presently covers his own separate expenses and travel between countries. Similar observations may be made about the visa applicant’s potential to benefit from family support in Australia to study in an area that better allows him to secure a skilled employment pathway into Uganda or Australia.
There is also a clear possibility that a person in the circumstances of the visa applicant may be tempted to follow a clearly laid out migration pathway from insecurity and conflict to permanency in Australia. While the representative argued that the visa applicant would not want to emulate that pathway because he would: “still have to go through applying for what we call a protection visa, and [his] children might not be accepted; it will be a very long time before he can be reunited with his family if say that was to be the case”. The Tribunal does not accept that any uncertainty or delay would act as a significant disincentive in the circumstances and considering all the objective facts. It is uncontroversial that the visa applicant works in a different country to his family already to support them and give them a better life. Looked at together these factors weigh against the visa applicant complying with his visa conditions, and work, study or stay longer than he is permitted to.
Other matters
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). As noted, there is some interface and overlap between the sub-clauses and much of the consideration of the visa applicant’s circumstances has been dealt with for convenience under the previous sub-clause. However, the Tribunal notes for completeness that much of its holistic assessment is based on the present circumstances of the visa applicant and his country of citizenship. Factors that influence that balancing exercise are set out below.
As noted in the assessment under cl 600.211(a), the visa applicant’s compliance with visa conditions in 2016 is a positive factor. However, the weight given to that positive factor is to be informed by the change in personal, family and country circumstances since that date.
The visa applicant’s visit to Australia occurred at a time when the applicant was young, without dependents, and relatively free to move about the world. The review applicant submitted that meant he was more likely to overstay in Australia in 2016 than now when he has a family to return to, indicating he will also return this time. The Tribunal does not accept that argument.
The independence and freedom the visa applicant enjoyed in 2016 meant that he was free to move within or outside South Sudan without concern for the implications of his movements on his young family. That indicates a much freer and less risk-focused state of mind than he presently experiences. The risks he must now consider every time he is inside and out of that country are objectively of a higher order and more acute than they were in the past.
While DFAT issued a red-notice for South Sudan in 2016 due to the second civil war there, the historical information indicates that the Australian Government travel advice was ‘updated’ in July 2016 from a general warning to reflect the ‘deteriorating security situation in the capital Juba’.[12] That was a month after the visa applicant obtained his visa indicating the Department was considering a lower country risk level than is declared for the country now. More broadly the broader country information applicable to South Sudan in 2016 indicates that the risks arising largely from the civil conflict at that time were not as intersectional and generalised as they are today.[13] Violence, insecurity and lawlessness have been compounded by widespread displacement, extensive flooding, economic and food insecurity at crisis or worse levels affecting more than half the population.[14] Three quarters of the population are currently in need of humanitarian aid.[15] This is happening at the same time as, and in addition to, a conflict which is being equated in severity to the previous civil wars.[16] The intersecting risks are “intensifying the already complex and chronic needs” of children in the country, leaving them vulnerable to starvation, abuse and violence.[17] None of this is to downplay the extreme nature of events that affected South Sudan in 2016, but to recognise that the current situation presents a more multifactorial and wide ranging set of risks that affect every aspect of life for the domestic population. To quote the Secretary General of the United Nations, the events of 2025 saw: “All the dark clouds of a perfect storm have descended upon the people of [South Sudan]”.[18]
[12] Hon Julie Bishop “Security situation in South Sudan” (12 July 2016) Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Media Release DFAT Country Information Report South Sudan’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 5 October 2016;
[14] IPC - Integrated Food Security Phase Classification “South Sudan: Acute Food Insecurity Situation Projection Update for April - July 2025” Above notes 8-11.
[16] Above note 8.
[17] UNICEF “Humanitarian Action for Children 2025 – South Sudan” 6 December 2024, Above note 8.

The Tribunal accepts the current country information and credible and reliable and directly relevant to the applicant’s current specific circumstances. He spends much of his time travelling into and working in South Sudan. His family are citizens of that country who are vulnerable to being returned there if circumstances in their country of residence change. In the Tribunal’s view the current country assessment is even worse now for families with young children than in 2016. The security situation in South Sudan also presents the very real possibility that the applicant may be deprived of his main source of financial support for his family, namely his ability to work there or travel there for work. That is a vulnerability and risk that did not exist in 2016.
In the view of the Tribunal, the circumstances have changed so that the reasons that the applicant might return to South Sudan or remain in Australia are so different that they are no longer effectively comparable to those in 2016. These changed circumstances substantially neutralise the positive weight that would otherwise be given to the applicant’s historical compliance with visa conditions.
The visa applicant’s ties to Uganda on the other hand have decreased since 2016 with the recent death of his mother who lived in that country. The only other evidence of family there is his own nuclear family who, for the reasons set out above, he has been willing to live apart from to support but ultimately could be more easily brought to Australia through an immigration pathway.
Finally, the Tribunal notes that the review applicant gave evidence that she is closest to her brother, the visa applicant, and seemed much less concerned about sponsoring other family members to visit Australia in the future. This reduces the possibility that the visa applicant might avoid breach to ensure that other siblings’ ability to visit the country are not affected. However, the Tribunal reiterates the willingness of the review applicant to provide a bond, which weighs in the opposite direction.
Conclusion on cl 600.211
Having considered all the objective evidence the Tribunal considers that there are presently substantially more factors in the visa applicant’s home country, his country of residence, and in Australia which would encourage, induce or ‘tempt’ him to overstay his visa or to breach other conditions of that visa whilst in Australia work whilst in Australia. Based on that assessment 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: 21 July 2025
Representative for the Applicants: Mr Louis Morris Kristopher

SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) (2006) 228 CLR 152, 163 (Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ).