Part 1 of this opinion series, Visitor subclass 600 refusals: poor decision-making is failing tourists, established the foundational principles that underpin lawful administrative decision-making.
I progressed the discussion in Visitor subclass 600: refusal letter legal insights case study 1 (Part 2), where I conducted an in-depth legal analysis of applicant 1's personal profile, the reasons for visiting Australia, his supporting evidence, the delegate's decision-making process and the written reasons for refusal. Case study 1 highlighted how a refusal built on a shaky foundation is a house of cards waiting to fall.
In Part 3, I highlight the difficulties experienced by Australians (including citizens, permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens) in bringing a partner from a country deemed "high-risk" by the Department of Home Affairs (the DHA) to Australia for a short stay on a visitor subclass 600 visa.
Applicant 2
Let's revisit applicant 2's profile.
Material facts
Female, aged in her 50s, from a high-risk country
Lives with elderly mother
Savings above AUD 10,000
No previous travel to Australia
Immediate family members reside in country of origin.
Contentious facts (from the DHA's perspective)
Full-time carer for her elderly vision impaired mother
Unverified income source
Ties to Australia (romantically linked to an Australian citizen).
Reasons for proposed visit to Australia
Invited by an Australian citizen to visit and stay at their home for up to three (3) months
The applicant and her invitee wish to explore a romantic relationship.
Evidence provided
Bank statements covering three months
Family book
Letter from the applicant’s Australian citizen romantic interest and his supporting evidence of identity, home ownership and financial resources
Photos of the couple when the Australian citizen visited the applicant
Submissions addressing the legal criteria and incentives to return home.
Refusal letter extract
The following content is an extract from applicant 2's decision record by a delegate with position number 60065690.
Information and evidence considered
I am a delegated decision maker under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958. In reaching my decision, I have considered the following:
relevant legislation contained in the Migration Act and Migration Regulations 1994
information contained in the Department's Procedural Instructions
documents and information provided by the applicant(s)
relevant information held on Departmental files.
Findings
On the basis of all the information available to me, including the documents and information the applicant provided, I find that the criteria for the grant of a Visitor (Tourist) visa in the Tourist stream are not satisfied.
Reasons
I have assessed the application and the reasons for my decision are detailed below.
An application for a Visitor (Tourist) visa in the Tourist stream has been made by the applicant.
A visa cannot be granted unless the relevant criteria specified in the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations are satisfied.
In this case, I am not satisfied that clause 600.211 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations is satisfied. This clause provides that:
600.211
The applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is
granted, having regard to:
(a) 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; and
(b) whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and
(c) any other relevant matter.
In assessing whether or not the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia, I have taken into account information provided in the application, the applicant's immigration history and compliance with previous visas. I have also taken into consideration any supporting documents as well as the applicant's personal circumstances, commitments, and incentive to return to their country of residence.
My decision is based on the following factors
Under policy when considering ‘any other relevant matter’, decision makers may take into account a wide range of considerations to determine whether an applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia. This may include, but is not limited to, the applicant’s employment, economic and family circumstances, their credibility, the claimed purpose and period of stay, and the applicant’s previous travel history.
The applicant claims to want to travel to Australia for tourism, and that they wish to visit their partner in Australia.
In support of their application, the applicant provided supporting documents and evidence such as:
Evidence of planned tourism activities in Australia
Evidence of the financial status and funding for visit
A support letter from their Australian partner
The applicant indicated that they are not currently employed, and they provided limited evidence to demonstrate any personal income. As the applicant has provided limited evidence of income derived from employment or business activities that may demonstrate incentives to depart Australia at the end of their proposed visit, I am not satisfied that they would comply with the conditions of a Visitor visa, if granted.
I have considered the reason stated for the visit. Nevertheless, it is necessary to provide adequate evidence with every application to satisfy the department that the applicant’s personal circumstances are such that the applicant would not potentially seek unlawful employment in Australia; or seek to remain there. I find that the stated purpose of travel does not outweigh the various concerns associated with the application as outlined above.
The applicant indicated they wish to visit [Australian citizen romantic interest], who they declared as their Australian citizen partner in Australia. They have provided limited evidence to support this claimed relationship. I note that under policy, weight may be given to applicants with partners who are Australian citizens. Without the ability to determine the extent of the applicant’s relationship with the inviter, I do not give weight to the claimed relationship and thus the offer of support from an Australian citizen. The onus remains with the applicant to demonstrate their intention to undertake a genuine temporary stay.
I have considered the information provided by the applicant in their visa application form and the supporting documents provided. I find that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that they intend a genuine temporary stay in Australia, nor that they have sufficiently strong commitments in [country of origin] that would be an incentive for them to depart Australia at the end of their proposed stay.
After considering the information provided, I am not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes set out above.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicant meets the relevant criteria in clause 600.211 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations.
Decision
As clause 600.211 is not satisfied, I find the criteria for the grant of a Visitor (Tourist) visa in the Tourist stream are not satisfied. Therefore, I refuse the application by the applicant for a Visitor (Tourist) visa in the Tourist stream.
Key legal issues
The delegate has not tested the facts and evidence for relevance to prescribed criteria and reliability/credibility
The delegate has not considered the issues in a comprehensive manner - both sides of the case were not explored
The delegate has ignored evidence that was inconvenient
The delegate's findings rely on assumptions, not evidence.
Testing the facts and evidence
Applicant 2 did not provide evidence of planned tourism activities in Australia and yet the delegate specifically lists this evidence item in the decision record. This suggests the delegate has used a template response, and that indicates the delegate has not turned their mind to the actual supporting documents and evidence provided by this specific applicant.
Consider the issues in a comprehensive manner
What is not clear from the information provided in this article but is a highly relevant consideration when assessing this application, is the inviter has previously sponsored a partner to Australia, under the partner visa program, about 15 years ago. As that relationship ended, the inviter expressed to the DHA in his letter of invitation that he wished to have this opportunity to bring his romantic interest to Australia to meet his family and friends, to acquaint her with the Australian way of life and to explore the relationship. It was important to him to have this time together to develop the relationship and ensure they were compatible, because embarking on a second partner visa sponsorship would be a big deal and cost him a lot of money. To a reasonable observer, this is a practical, common sense approach.
Now armed with this additional relevant information, we will learn below that the delegate gives no weight to the claimed relationship between applicant 2 and the inviter, and therefore the inviter's offer of support is rejected.
Inconvenient evidence was ignored
The delegate says they have taken into account any supporting documents, but key evidence is not mentioned in the decision record. For example, a house register was provided that demonstrates that applicant 2 resides in her elderly mother's home; applicant 2 is a live-in full-time carer for her mother, who is aged in her 80s and almost blind. That evidence is highly relevant because it is a tie to applicant 2's country of origin and is an incentive to depart Australia and return home. Applicant 2 provided three months worth of bank statements. Her bank statements show regular deposits and regular withdrawals over that period, sums of money which is not insignificant, especially considering applicant 2 is from a "high-risk" country, where average incomes are extremely low compared to incomes in Australia. Applicant 2, being a full-time carer, is not employed in a job, but receives income support from overseeing the family business and being her mother's carer. The delegate ignored key evidence, large sums of money regularly deposited into applicant 2's bank account. That money must come from somewhere. The delegate made no findings about the bank statements or deposits, evidence which was highly relevant to determining whether applicant 2 is seeking to come to Australia to work in breach of her visa conditions.
— Delegate (position number 60065690)As the applicant has provided limited evidence of income derived from employment or business activities that may demonstrate incentives to depart Australia at the end of their proposed visit, I am not satisfied that they would comply with the conditions of a Visitor visa, if granted.
The word "limited" is an adjective and means restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small or short. The use of the adjective "limited" implies applicant 2 has provided some evidence of income derived from employment or business activities, but the delegate does not identify the specific "limited" evidence.
Furthermore, as the delegate has previously stated that the applicant indicated she is not currently employed, it is odd for the delegate to then say that "limited" evidence of income derived from employment or business activities has been provided. The delegate has not expressed any opinion or conclusion about this "limited" evidence of personal income. Was that "limited" evidence just ignored? Perhaps. Or maybe the delegate is either confused or has not read the evidence on file and has used a template response, and that indicates the delegate has not turned their mind to the actual supporting documents and evidence provided by this specific applicant.
— Delegate (position number 60065690)I have considered the reason stated for the visit. Nevertheless, it is necessary to provide adequate evidence with every application to satisfy the department that the applicant’s personal circumstances are such that the applicant would not potentially seek unlawful employment in Australia; or seek to remain there. I find that the stated purpose of travel does not outweigh the various concerns associated with the application, as outlined above.
At this point of the decision record, we are a full two-pages into the reasons and the delegate has not once mentioned or discussed the nature of applicant 2's relationship with the inviter, [Australian citizen romantic interest]. Nor has the delegate mentioned or discussed applicant's personal circumstances in [country of origin] regarding the source of her substantial deposits and commitments as carer to her elderly mother, and overseer of the family business.
The delegate then references "various concerns" (implying several) associated with the application that outweigh the stated purpose of travel. However, the decision record at that point has identified only a single concern, which is applicant 2’s limited evidence of income, as being the basis for not being satisfied that she would comply with the conditions of a visitor subclass 600 visa, if granted. This deliberate use of the plural form—known as “plural inflation”—exaggerates the actual scope or quantity of issues by presenting them as numerous, even when they may not be. By using “concerns” instead of “concern,” the delegate artificially increases the number of issues—both genuine and contrived—that arise from the facts and evidence.
It seems the delegate has already decided at this point that applicant 2 will breach the "no work" condition attached to a visitor subclass 600 visa. That is an erroneous conclusion to draw in light of all the information and evidence that accompanied the application, including my submissions.
— Delegate (position number 60065690)The applicant indicated that they wish to visit [name of Australian citizen romantic interest], who they declared as their Australian citizen partner in Australia.
The assertion that applicant 2 declared this person to be her partner in Australia is false; let me explain why.
At page 9/19 of Form 1419 (Internet), the approved form for a visitor subclass 600 visa application, an applicant may insert the details of their contacts in Australia. The question Relationship to the applicant contains a pick list, which is hard-coded with options. From the list of hard-coded options, applicant 2 did not select "Spouse/De Facto Partner" in her application. She selected ‘Other’ and provided the following additional information:
[Name of Australian citizen romantic interest] and I are in the early stages of a relationship.
At page 12/19 of Form 1419 (Internet), an applicant is required to provide information of how the applicant’s stay in Australia will be funded. If an applicant selects the hard-coded option "supported by other person", the applicant is then prompted to give details of the person that will provide the support. The question Relationship to the applicant contains a pick list of options which are hard-coded. Importantly, at this question, the option "Other" has been removed. That fact forced applicant 2 to select the next best answer from the hard-coded options available, which was "Spouse/De Facto Partner". Whether by design or not, applicant 2 has been entrapped in selecting that response, because the form inconveniently omits the option "Other", and "Spouse/De Facto Partner" was the next best choice from the remaining hard-coded options.
The delegate then states:
— Delegate (position number 60065690)They have provided limited evidence to support this claimed relationship.
Applicant 2 is not claiming to have an established relationship with her inviter. In fact, both applicant 2 and her inviter [Australian citizen romantic interest] have been explicit in their information and evidence that the relationship between them is new (eg the dating phase) and they wish to explore the possibility of pursing a committed relationship. They were clear in expressing that the purpose of the visit is to introduce applicant 2 to the inviter's family and friends and to spend time together getting to know each other more. They have only spent about two weeks together, outside Australia. They are not ready to commit to a partner visa. A visitor subclass 600 visa is the only suitable visa option for applicant 2 at this time. There is limited evidence of the relationship for these reasons. The delegate's comment is unintelligent, and in my opinion, emphatically establishes jurisdictional error because it's an absurd and unreasonable conclusion to make.
The delegate proceeds to compound the jurisdictional error:
— Delegate (position number 60065690)Without the ability to determine the extent of the applicant’s relationship with the inviter, I do not give weight to the claimed relationship and thus the offer of support from an Australian citizen.
I firmly believe that the delegate did not read the supporting evidence, nor my submissions, because had they done so, it is obvious (in my humble opinion), that the relationship between applicant 2 and her inviter is in its infancy, because as they said, they are in the early (ie dating phase) of a relationship. They submitted all available "relationship evidence" with the application, including the inviter's movement details leaving Australia to visit applicant 2 in her country of origin.
The extent of the relationship can be determined from the information and evidence provided. Again, another absurd and unreasonable conclusion reached by this delegate.
The delegate relied on unsubstantiated assumptions to refuse the application
This extract demonstrates that the delegate is concerned that applicant 2 is coming to Australia to seek unlawful employment, or using the visitor subclass 600 visa as a means to enter Australia and then seek to remain there.
— Delegate (position number 60065690)I have considered the reason stated for the visit. Nevertheless, it is necessary to provide adequate evidence with every application to satisfy the department that the applicant’s personal circumstances are such that the applicant would not potentially seek unlawful employment in Australia; or seek to remain there.
Applicant 2 is not short of money. She is aged in her 50s, she is a full-time carer for her elderly mother, her immediate family all reside in her country of origin. She has met an Australian citizen online, he went over to visit her and now he wishes for applicant 2 to come to Australia for a visit. If applicant 2's country of passport was a low-risk country, she would get an eVisitor visa no problem.
In the financial year ending 30 June 2024, there were a total of 1,849,345 applications in the visitor visa program (tourist stream subclass 600 visa). Of these applications, the number of visa grants was 1,397,813. That represents a grant rate of 76.9%, and a refusal rate of 23.1%.
The three issues for applicant 2 is her country of origin, deemed high-risk by the DHA, her employment status, and her relationship with an Australian. Do these three facts alone mean applicant 2 is high-risk because she will likely work in Australia in breach of her visa conditions, or seek to remain because of her dating relationship status with an Australian?
Applicant 2 provided evidence of funds in her bank account equivalent to more than AUD 10,000 and she provided an explanation of the origin of those funds, from the family/business activities. The inviter provided evidence of owning a home and evidence of his financial capacity to host applicant 2 for a stay of up to three months. Yet, despite all this evidence, the delegate had concerns applicant 2 may work in Australia in breach of visa conditions or would seek to remain in Australia. What evidence underpins these concerns? The only evidence I can think of is country profiling/statistics held by the DHA.
Country profiling seems to be the culprit in many visitor subclass 600 visa applications where the applicant has a relationship with an Australian. This pattern of refusals reflects a broader systemic issue within visa decision-making—where risk profiling may overshadow individual circumstances and procedural fairness.
Delegates have at their disposal discretion to impose visa condition 8503 no further stay, if they are worried about an applicant coming to Australia with an intention to lodge an onshore application. Delegates can also request an applicant for a visitor subclass 600 visa to be sponsored by an eligible person in Australia. Finally, they can request a financial bond to ensure compliance with visa conditions. In my 17 year career, I have never seen a delegate utilise these legislative provisions to alleviate any "concerns" they had about a visitor subclass 600 applicant. Instead, they refuse the application and offer weak, illogical and unreasonable explanations for their decision.
What other visa pathway does the DHA provide for couples in this situation? There is no other visa fit for purpose, because for many couples in similar situations, the partner visa pathway is not suitable at this early stage of the relationship. It's a terrible predicament for Australians who are essentially being treated as second-class citizens by their own elected officials.
In Part 4, I'll discuss two cases where the DHA granted a visitor subclass 600 visa, despite the applicants being from high-risk countries, having no income source and in a relationship with an Australian.