Zheng (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1019

ZHENG (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1019 (16 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Ms Qinghong Zheng
Visa Applicant:  Ms Qingxia Zheng
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2312504

Tribunal:General Member F Sneath
Place:Canberra
Date: 16 June 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 16 June 2025 at 8:43am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – applicant’s employment details – business investment in home country – previous compliant visit – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231, 600.612
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 13 July 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 7 July 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 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. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia. The delegate was unable to verify details of the visa applicant’s employment online so did not give significant weight to the visa applicant’s claimed employment and was not satisfied that their economic circumstances demonstrated they would return to China at the end of their stay in Australia.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 May 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin 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.
Background
The review applicant is 38 years old and was born in China. She studied in Australia, is married and is a permanent resident of Australia.
The visa applicant is 45 years old and a sister of the review applicant. She is the eldest child of their parents who are retired and live in China. She is not married and has no children. She claims to be self-employed, the majority shareholder and general manager of an import company she established with a business partner. She has previously held a management position in another company (at the time of the visa application), and in a company established by her father.
The visa applicant claims that she does not own any property in China and lives in a residence attached to the office of the business. She claims to have invested most of her savings in the company and draws RMB 15,000-20,000 quarterly as income. She says she has no debts and travels regularly between Indonesia and China for business.
The review and visa applicants also have another sister who is resident in Australia, and other siblings in China.
Purpose and duration of visit
The visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting her sisters in Australia. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231. It is claimed that the visa applicant only wants to visit for two to four weeks as she has responsibilities to her business. It is claimed that she will pay her own airfare and stay with the review applicant.
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 previously travelled to Australia and was last granted a visitor visa (Subclass 600) on 19 July 2019. There is no evidence of non-compliance with that visa.
Intention to comply with visa 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 600.612):
·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 review and visa applicant are both aware of the conditions to which the subclass 600 visa would be subject and each asserted that the visa applicant would comply with all conditions. The review and visa applicant both described the employment circumstances of the visa applicant indicating the visa applicant’s responsibilities to the ongoing operation of her company as precluding any desire to work or study in Australia or overstay the visa, as well as family connections in China.
Other relevant matters
The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). The Tribunal has considered evidence of the employment and business circumstances of the visa applicant. These have changed since consideration by the delegate.
The visa applicant claims to have established her own company, with a partner, importing materials for manufacture of products in China. The company was established in late 2024 and documents were provided to verify the existence of the company, including its constitution and banking records. The applicant claimed to have invested most of her savings (around RMB 600,000) in the company business. An accounting certification letter provided to the Tribunal attested to the stable financial position and good operating condition of the company.
The visa applicant described regular travel to countries other than Australia, consistent with the operations of the company and previous employment, and documents supporting that travel were provided to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted the visa applicant did not own any real property, her personal savings were modest and that the company had only been in operation for six months and so did not have a substantial reporting history. The Tribunal therefore sought further information to clarify the existence of a lease for residential and business premises and notwithstanding the accounting certification, to demonstrate currency of the company operations. Documents addressing these matters were provided to the Tribunal after the hearing.
The Tribunal brought to the attention of the review applicant and their representative the existence of material on the Department file subject to a certificate issued for a public interest reason pursuant to s 376 of the Act. The Tribunal advised them that it intended to place no weight on the material as it did not consider it was relevant to the decision as to whether the visa applicant has a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, and no submission was made on it.
The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant is the majority shareholder and general manager in a recently established trading company that is a going concern. The information provided by the visa applicant about the operations of the company supports that she has strong business commitments in China that would be an incentive for her to return to China after a visit to Australia.
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(s) of hearing: 8 May 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Ms Bingqing Wang (MARN: 1278397)