Salma (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1475

SALMA (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1475 (29 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mrs Bibi Salma
Visa Applicants:  Mr Kamal Hussain
Mrs Bibi Sakina
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2533007

Tribunal:General Member Rosa Gagliardi
Place:Australian Capital Territory
Date: 29 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 29 July 2025 at 3:31pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant and compliance with conditions – visiting to support daughter during birth of child – previous compliant travel to other countries for religious purposes – all children in Australia – review applicant’s mother-in-law’s previous compliant travel – security conditions in home area do not personally affect applicants – properties and religious and community ties – care for several grandchildren – country information – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 600.211
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 10 June 2025 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 20 May 2025. At the time the visa applications were lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of 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 they were not satisfied that the applicants had a genuine intention to stay in Australia only temporarily and for the purpose for which the visa was granted.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the review applicant’s husband, and their son. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Pashto and English languages.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
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.
In the present case, the visa applicants seek the visas for the purposes of staying with their daughter, the review applicant, during the birth of her third child in October 2025. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
cl.600.211(a)
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 applicants, from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, have travelled together to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq on pilgrimages to holy shrines. The review applicant’s husband gave evidence that the couple were used to travelling together as it provided them with comfort and the Tribunal accepts that in travelling to Australia, outside their own region, and much further away, they wanted to be able to travel together.
While the applicants have returned to their home country after previous travel the Tribunal is required to consider that the applicants have all their children in Australia, although some in Perth (the review applicant is in Melbourne) and that this could represent a motivating factor for them to breach their visa conditions and remain onshore. Having considered the matter holistically however the Tribunal does not place adverse weight on the fact the applicants have never travelled to Australia and considers that despite their affective ties in Australia, they do not intend to do other than visit their daughter and her family in Australia as they have a specific purpose in coming to Australia, and that is to provide their daughter with support during the birth of her child.
The review applicant has suffered a miscarriage previously at five months into her pregnancy which unsettled her significantly. She now fears will be unable to cope without family to support her and feels particularly vulnerable. Her husband is supportive of the review applicant, but their living arrangements are such that at the moment he works in Canberra, and she is living with her children in Victoria. Her husband stated he would take a few days off when the child was born but then he would be forced to go back to work in Canberra as he was the breadwinner in the family. Their other two children were relatively young, and it would be unreasonable to place the emotional and physical burden to manage the household on them after the delivery of the child.
The review applicant’s husband also noted that his own mother who also lives in the same area in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, travelled to Australia in 2024 and abided by all her conditions and returned home on expiry of her visa. This is even though the review applicant’s husband fled to Australia by boat as he was working for an NGO and faced problems because he was perceived as pro-Western. His mother’s and his parents’-in-law faced no such difficulties in their country, however. The review applicant’s husband conceded that there was instability in the area, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but it had always been that way, and his parents-in-law had not been affected.
The Tribunal has had reference to country information which indicates that until 21 November 2024, a high security presence had effectively maintained order in the area but that on that date gunmen attacked a large convey of vehicles transporting Shia Muslims between Parachinar to Peshawar, resulting in 42 deaths.[1] Until this terrorist act, inter-sectarian fighting between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims was mediated through a UNDP-led dialogue established in 2023.[2] Hence, while the general situation had appeared to be peaceful of late in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the incident in November 2024 derailed such stability. Nonetheless, the Tribunal accepts that the circumstances have not personally impacted the applicants.
[1] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 30 April 2025, country-information-report-pakistan.pdf.
[2] Ibid.
Given the review applicant’s husband’s mother has travelled to Australia (Tribunal decision 2321178 sighted) and complied with her conditions, the Tribunal can be satisfied that the review applicant and her family will also ensure the compliance of the visa applicants with the terms of their visas.
cl.600.211(b)
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:
·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 first named applicant is 60 years of age and the second named applicant, his wife, is 51 years of age. The first named applicant is now a retired driver, and the second named applicant is a housewife. They were both at home now. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are not coming to Australia to work or study in contravention of their visa conditions, particularly in a new environment where they cannot speak the language and are not familiar with the culture.
The Tribunal appreciates that the applicants have no biological children living in Pakistan, nonetheless, evidence was given at hearing that they were responsible for several grandchildren, whose parents were currently living in Australia. Asked who would look after the grandchildren in their absence, the review applicant’s husband stated that the extended family all lived together and therefore, the applicants could afford to be away for a short period.
The review applicant and her husband also emphasised that the first named applicant was seen as a community leader in his home area and while he was no longer working, he did have a role to play in the well-being of his neighbourhood. The religious and cultural aspects of living in the applicants’ home area was also important to them as these aspects were incorporated into their everyday lives and living in a secular society such as Australia, would not suit them. The review applicant’s husband noted that in Pakistan living with other extended family members was important and the Tribunal accepts that this means that the elderly are not isolated and uncared for in their culture.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicants’ way of life in Pakistan is a significant incentive for them to return to their home country.
Furthermore, evidence has been submitted that the applicants own four residential properties in Pakistan and that the total value of these properties is Pakistani Rupees 37200000 (AUD$201,365.00) which is not an insignificant amount in relative terms. Furthermore, the applicants have submitted via their bank account evidence they earn income from these properties and their savings are also not insignificant. The Tribunal accepts that these assets represent another important connection to Pakistan as they represent the sum of the applicants’ lifesavings and economic security in Pakistan.
cl.600.211(c)
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). The review applicant and her husband have two children and another one on the way. They also have a home loan, and their savings are modest. They have stated that they would be prepared to provide security of up to $15,000 to secure the visit.
Conclusion
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 of hearing
: 29 July 2025
: N/A

Representative for the Applicant