Seyedgogani (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2135

SEYEDGOGANI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 2135 (26 SEPTEMBER 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mrs Ayda Seyedgogani
Visa Applicant:  Miss Nazanin Seyedgogani
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2407950

Tribunal:General Member Rosa Gagliardi
Place:Australian Capital Territory
Date: 26 September 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 26 September 2025 at 1:54pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – family commitments – employment and property ownership in home country – higher education studies – social and political climate in Iran – previous compliant visits – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231, 600.611
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on

21 March 2024 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 15 February 2024. 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). 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 it was considered she had little incentive to return to her home country and therefore was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 September 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Nazanin Seyedgogani, who is the review applicant's sister. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian 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 applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting her sister and family. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.
The hearing
The Tribunal asked why the review applicant had asked for priority for the case as it was not immediately apparent on the evidence. The representative stated that the applicants were anxious during the war crisis that the embassies might close and therefore the applicant would not be able to depart Iran, and the visa processing would be affected. Otherwise, the war did not affect the applicant personally.
The review applicant stated that she had no family in Australia, and she had a young daughter who wanted to see her aunt. Her daughter had only met the visa applicant once, when the review applicant and she had travelled to Iran several years ago.
The Tribunal asked on what visa the review applicant came to Australia, and she responded she came on a Skilled Migration visa.
The Tribunal referred to the volatility in the Middle East and why it should accept the visa applicant would return to Iran on expiry of her visa. The review applicant stated she had her mother there for whom she cared and was elderly. Recently her mother had had a major operation on her back and needed long term assistance. In addition, the visa applicant was tenured and worked for a university in Iran and had a very good job there. She had a few properties and was financially stable, and these were good reasons for her to return to her home country after the visit. Her main objective was to see the review applicant and her family.
The review applicant further stated that regardless of any social or political upheaval the visa applicant would never leave their mother alone in Iran. Iran had been unstable for a lengthy period and her sister had travelled to various countries and always abided by her conditions. The Tribunal asked the review applicant what her sister’s purpose in travelling to France and other countries had been. The review applicant responded that she had financial stability and could travel as a tourist. When asked whether the applicant had ever had difficulties with the authorities in Iran, the review applicant responded no.
The precise nature of the visa applicant’s work involved managing a computer lab at the Azad University. She had started working there in 2000 or so and would be eligible to retire in several years. The review applicant stated her sister was not interested in retiring but if she wanted to, she could access her benefits shortly.
Asked when the applicant was due to complete her PhD, the review applicant stated she was at the later stages of presenting her thesis.
When asked, the review applicant stated her sister was not engaged to be married or partnered in Iran and she was not coming to Australia to look for a husband. The review applicant stated she was not part of an Iranian community which would permit her to introduce her to someone for marriage. That was the problem – they felt isolated in Australia.
The review applicant stated that her mother had travelled to Australia in 2022 and had complied with her visa conditions.
The review applicant stated she works for a law firm in an administrative and design role. Her husband was a project manager in the construction industry, and they were prepared to pay a bond to secure the visit.
The Tribunal spoke to the visa applicant noting she was highly independent, had travelled and was successful in her career in Iran, but asked why she wanted to travel to Australia at this particular point when the Middle East was so unstable. She responded she only wanted to visit her sister and her family. The visa applicant stated that they had originally sought the visa in 2024, when the crisis had not begun and besides, the war was not happening in the cities. They had specifically targeted installations outside the cities. They were not worried about the war.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what would motivate her to return to Iran on conclusion of her visit. She responded she had several reasons, and the most important reason was her mother due to her medical conditions. While she is in Australia, she stated that an aunt from Tehran would go and live with her mother during her absence. In addition, she had been holding her job at the Azad university since 2001 and will be eligible to retire in a couple of years and she did not want to lose the relevant benefits. She was also undertaking a PhD and was at the end of the research stage and would have to present her thesis in a few months. Her PhD was in Electrical Engineering Control Systems.
The Tribunal asked why the applicant would be undertaking a PhD at the end of her working life and she responded that she had started her PhD in 2015, but had to defer because she lost her father and then she returned as it would allow her to apply to be part of the academic staff. She was interested in teaching at the tertiary level and that is what she would do on retirement from her current position.
The review applicant stated she would not trade the stable position she had built for herself in Iran to begin all over again in another country. She emphasised she would not work or study in Australia and would not do anything that would adversely affect her sister’s record or her own, as she planned to travel even more widely in the future.
Evidence submitted
·Medical evidence, dated 7 September 2025, certifying that the visa applicant’s and the review applicant’s mother underwent surgery on 10 August 2025 for a spinal vertebral fracture and was in the post-operative period and that, “Based on her clinical condition, the patient will require care and support from a family member to perform daily activities for an estimated period of five to six months. During this time, she will not be able to manage her personal affairs independently”.
·Evidence of long-term employment commencing in 2001 as reflected in the applicant’s social security records and evidence of her employment as a laboratory expert in the Technical and Engineering Faculty of Islamic Azad University in Tabriz.
·Payslip by Islamic Azad University for the applicant indicating that she earns Iranian Rial 68,198,212, monthly, the equivalent of roughly AUD$2,455.00 dollars in today’s currency. The payslip accounts for overtime, and payment of insurance/life.
·Evidence of a deposit savings account amounting to AUD$16,558.55.
·Gold valuation certificate.
·Certificate of employment and grant of 5 weeks leave to the applicant by the Islamic Azad University.
·Student ID Card demonstrating that the applicant is also undertaking a PhD in Electrical Engineering – Control Systems
·Savings by the review applicant
cl.600.212(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 applicant has not previously travelled to Australia. As her migration agent has highlighted, however, the applicant’s travel history does include travel to a Schengen country, France, in 2024. If the applicant were determined to leave Iran, the Tribunal considers she would have tried to do so then. The visa applicant is financially independent and from the evidence it is clear she has an interest in travel, having an open outlook. Despite travelling to other places, she has always gravitated towards her now widowed mother as the visa applicant and the review applicant do not have other siblings that could look after her. The Tribunal places some weight on the applicant’s previous travel to France where, on the evidence, it would appear she has complied with her visa conditions.
The Tribunal also places weight on the fact that in 2022 when the visa applicant’s mother travelled to Australia she was at that stage widowed but returned to Iran without incident.
cl.600.611(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 applicant is clearly well-established in her career with the university in Iran and the Tribunal is satisfied that she would not be coming to Australia to undertake some unskilled work for a period of over a month or so, or for any period, as it is unlikely she would be able to work at a professional level in Australia as she is currently doing in Iran.
The applicant does not have dependents and the Tribunal accepts that she has several properties and gold assets and that while her income might not be comparable to what she could earn in Australia in a profession, the Tribunal notes that it is more than enough to look after her own personal needs and those of her mother, and to be able to travel and maintain a relatively good standard of living in Iran.
Furthermore, the applicant is close to presenting her PhD thesis to her academic supervisors so to abandon what she has worked to complete since 2015, before the death of her father, would be to have invested in significant research for naught. The Tribunal accepts that this academic commitment represents an incentive for the visa applicant to return to Iran on expiry of her visa in Australia.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant is also responsible for her aged and widowed mother who relies on her psychologically and physically, and particularly now that she has had a medical intervention to her spine which means her mobility is compromised. The Tribunal accepts the visa applicant’s statements that she would never leave her mother and that even if the war did affect the applicant and her mother personally, this would provide even more incentive for the applicant to stay with her mother and not abandon her during a crisis.
The Tribunal has taken into consideration that there has been instability in Iran more recently, with the United States bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities after Israel had struck military and nuclear targets in May 2025 [1] and that the visa applicant argued that civilians were not involved. This, however, is not totally accurate as at least 627 people have been killed in Iran, and 28 in Israel, according to each country.[2] Despite the instability, and the ongoing proxy conflict, the Tribunal has no doubt that the visa applicant would never leave her emotionally and physically vulnerable mother to cope on her own in circumstances of a full-blown war situation.
[1] ‘The road to the Israel-Iran war’, Kevin Huaggard and Mallika Yadwad, 23 July 2025, Brookings, The road to the Israel-Iran war | Brookings.
[2] ‘What we don’t know about the Israel-Iran war’, 27 June 2025, ABC news, What we don't know about the Israel-Iran war - ABC News.
The Tribunal found the evidence that the review applicant feels isolated and unsupported by extended family members in Australia persuasive and accepts that her young child is desirous of being with her aunt, as is the review applicant having few social networks in Australia.
cl.600.211(c)
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). This visa requires a bond to be paid to secure the visit and the Tribunal considers that up to AUD$20,000 would be appropriate in this case. Of course, the Department will make its own assessment about this.
Conclusion
For the above reasons 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 of hearing: 19 September 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Hassan Izadnia (MARN: 1571846)