A Visitor SC 600 Visa refusal built on a shaky foundation is a house of cards waiting to fall
Part 1 of this opinion piece Poor decision-making is failing Visitor SC 600 Visa applicants laid the foundation for understanding the fundamental principles of administrative law decision-making.
In Part 2, I take it up a notch by getting technical and delving into legal analysis, to identify and frame the key legal issues in each Visitor SC 600 Visa refusal. Although legal analysis may not be "technical" in the same way as engineering or IT skills, it is a refined, specialised ability that demands rigorous training and practice—making it a technical skill for immigration lawyers.
Applicant 1
Let's revisit applicant 1's profile.
Material facts
Male, aged in his 30s, from a high-risk country
Degree qualified in an occupation on Australia’s Medium and Long‑term Strategic Skills List
Has a positive skills assessment for migration to Australia
Has stable employment; more than eight (8) years’ experience in his skilled occupation
Currently working full-time as a consultant for an organisation based in a low-risk country (remote contractor arrangement); he has held this skilled position for three (3) years eight (8) months
Current annual retainer equivalent to AUD salary range 115,000 -130,000; this salary would place him in the top 1% of income earners in his country of origin
Genuine savings and assets above AUD 50,000
Co-owner of business
No previous travel to Australia
Immediate family members reside in country of origin.
Contentious facts (from Home Affairs' perspective)
Ties to Australia (EOI and desire to migrate)
Country of origin.
Reasons for proposed visit to Australia
Invited by an Australian permanent resident to visit and stay at their home for four (4) months
As an aspiring migrant, he wanted to take this opportunity to explore Australia’s regions.
Evidence provided
CV
Income payments x three years
Letter from organisation confirming remote contractor arrangement, start date, position, retainer and acknowledgment of applicant 1's Australian visit during which he will maintain standard working hours
Cover letter addressing reasons for the proposed visit and listing incentives to return home
Letter of invitation from Australian permanent resident friend.
Rejection letter extract
The following content is an extract from applicant 1's decision record by a delegate with the position number 60197347.
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.
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
Although I have taken the applicant’s claims of employment with [business name] at face value, there is no evidence that they have current approved leave from their employer for their intended length of stay in Australia. I have concerns whether the applicant will be able to remain employed in [applicant’s country of origin] for the duration of their stated visit, which indicates that the claimed employment is not a sufficient incentive to return from a stay in Australia. I therefore have concerns as to whether the applicant intends a genuine temporary stay in Australia.
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
The delegate says they have taken the applicant's claims of employment "at face value". The saying "at face value" originates from the world of coinage and currency, where a coin’s face value refers to the denomination printed or minted on it—its apparent worth without any consideration of its intrinsic metal value or market fluctuations. Over time, this literal meaning extended metaphorically into everyday language. When someone is advised to take something "at face value," they are being told to accept it based solely on its outward appearance or the way it is presented, without delving into further analysis or questioning its underlying authenticity or context.
Historically, the phrase began to be used in a figurative sense in the 19th century, as trade and commerce grew more sophisticated and the need to distinguish between nominal and intrinsic value became more apparent. Today, it remains a common idiom in English, used to caution against making assumptions without looking beyond the superficial presentation of facts or statements.
In other words, this phrase means that you should not immediately accept information just because it appears clear or straightforward at first glance. Instead, you should critically examine the details and context before forming an opinion or decision.
The meaning behind the delegate’s word choice is clear: the delegate has taken the applicant's claims of employment “at face value”, meaning they have accepted the applicant’s claims without subjecting them to further scrutiny or testing the underlying facts and evidence. Hence, the delegate has not tested the facts and evidence as required in lawful decision making. This is a fundamental flaw, in my opinion.
Consider the issues in a comprehensive manner
The delegate's sole concern is whether applicant 1 intends a genuine temporary stay in Australia. A close examination of the delegate's reasoning process reveals that the decision-maker manufactured (created) or introduced a problem that does not naturally arise from the facts or evidence of this specific case, leading to flawed reasoning and ultimately, an unjust decision. Let's explore this further, step-by-step.
— Delegate (position number 60197347)there is no evidence that they have current approved leave from their employer for their intended length of stay in Australia
The delegate has manufactured an issue that does not arise from the specific facts of this case. In other words, the delegate has artificially created a problem that does not naturally arise from the facts and supporting evidence.
The applicant’s intended length of stay is 4 months (Feb – May 2025). This is equal to 120 days. From this total, only 35 days are weekend days. As the applicant will be maintaining standard working hours, he will utilise only weekend days and after hours for tourism and recreation.
The applicant does not require approved leave for his weekend days and after hours. In a legal or administrative context, this implies that the delegate is presenting a concern or flaw—perhaps to justify a decision or to discredit the applicant’s argument—even though the evidence does not genuinely support such a problem. The delegate has constructed an issue where none exists, thereby undermining the fairness or objectivity of the decision-making process.
— Delegate (position number 60197347)I have concerns whether the applicant will be able to remain employed in [applicant’s country of origin] for the duration of their stated visit
In the bolded phrase above, "concerns" is used as a plural noun, meaning the delegate has multiple worries. What are those multiple concerns? The delegate has mentioned just one concern, namely whether applicant 1 will be able to remain employed for the duration of his stated visit in Australia. In other words, the delegate is concerned about a hypothetical event: applicant 1 becoming unemployed in his country of origin.
Applicant 1 submitted a letter from a third-party that addresses this issue. The delegate took the employment claims "at face value". Now the delegate has manufactured "concerns" about a hypothetical event that may or may not eventuate. This is often referred to as making a decision on speculative or conjectural grounds. In other words, the concern (singular) is based on unfounded or unsubstantiated speculation rather than on concrete evidence. This type of reasoning may be characterised as speculative decision-making or a decision based on an unsupported hypothesis.
Let’s revisit the applicant’s employment background. The applicant has more than eight years of experience in his skilled occupation, including a continuous period of three years and eight months with a single organisation (his current position). This generally demonstrates both strong work ethic and career stability. Such a tenure suggests that the applicant is committed to his role and likely has developed valuable expertise over time. Applicant 1 is likely to be well-established in the position, possess relevant experience, and is likely to have developed a level of competence that supports an ongoing employment relationship with the organisation. Applicant 1 earns a good salary that is comparable to the annual salary paid in Australia for the skilled occupation. Applicant 1 provided three years’ worth of income evidence and a letter from the organisation. The organisation has full confidence in applicant 1 meeting his work obligations while in Australia, where electricity and internet access are both readily available. Knowing what we know about applicant 1’s current role, his skilled occupation, his salary and his work history, it is difficult to identify the origin of the delegate’s multiple “concerns”.
I fail to see how these facts are cause for concern.
Is the delegate concerned about applicant 1’s employment because of his country of origin? If that is the basis of the delegate’s multiple "concerns", this is an example of a "non causa pro causa" error, where an irrelevant factor—applicant 1’s country of origin—is incorrectly used to infer a lack of employment stability. Essentially, the decision-maker is drawing a false causal connection between applicant 1's country of origin and his ability to maintain stable employment, which is unsupported by the evidence of three years eight months in his current position. This reasoning may also be characterised as discriminatory, as it bases the decision on a factor unrelated to applicant 1’s actual performance or employment circumstances.
In my opinion, the only plausible basis for the delegate’s multiple “concerns” is applicant 1’s country of origin. The error in this reasoning is essentially a non sequitur. The delegate’s single concern—that the applicant may not remain employed in his country of origin for the duration of his stay in Australia—is not logically supported by the evidence provided. Applicant 1's extensive experience and nearly four years of continuous employment with one organisation clearly indicates career stability and a strong work ethic. Without identifying any relevant evidence or specific issues (such as any indication that applicant 1’s country of origin would affect employment while visiting another country), the delegate’s manufactured "concerns" appears to be based on an unwarranted assumption. This represents an error where the conclusion does not follow from the facts presented.
This is an example of a "non causa pro causa" non sequitur. In this instance, the delegate attributes a causal relationship between applicant 1's country of origin and his ability to maintain his remote employment arrangement while in Australia, despite applicant 1's extensive, stable employment record maintaining remote employment for the past three years and eight months. The evidence presented (a solid work history and long-term commitment) does not logically support the conclusion that his country of origin is a factor.
— Delegate (position number 60197347)which indicates that the claimed employment is not a sufficient incentive to return from a stay in Australia
"Which indicates" is a phrase used to introduce an inference or a conclusion that follows from the information previously provided. It suggests that the preceding facts or details serve as evidence or a sign of a particular state or condition. When a "non causa pro causa" non sequitur results in an inference or conclusion, it is typically referred to as a false cause fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a cause-and-effect relationship is assumed based solely on the superficial or coincidental association of events, without sufficient evidence to substantiate that connection.
A false cause fallacy is a logical error in which a person assumes that one event causes another simply because the events occur in sequence or in conjunction, without sufficient evidence to establish a genuine causal relationship. This fallacy often leads to misleading conclusions based solely on coincidental or superficial associations between events.
The delegate’s “concerns” stem from unfounded or unsubstantiated speculation rather than on concrete evidence to conclude that the applicant will not be able maintain his remote employment arrangement while in Australia. That false cause fallacy was then relied on to conclude that applicant's 1 employment is not a sufficient incentive to return from his trip to Australia. What about the other ties to his country of origin? Why is there is no mention of that relevant evidence?
— Delegate (position number 60197347)I therefore have "concerns" as to whether the applicant intends a genuine temporary stay in Australia
The delegate, again, uses the plural form “concerns,” thereby implying the existence of multiple issues. 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. This inflation undermines applicant 1’s credibility, distracting the delegate from the substantive matters and reducing the persuasive power of the evidence presented. Ultimately, this exaggerated plurality lays the foundation for the delegate to justify subsequent statements that further diminish the reliability of applicant 1’s claims.
Furthermore, this quote is an instance of an erroneous causal inference—specifically, a false cause fallacy (a "non causa pro causa" non sequitur) leading to an unwarranted conclusion. In this case, the decision-maker infers that the applicant does not intend a genuine temporary stay in Australia based on a causal connection that is not substantiated by the facts: applicant 1 cannot maintain employment in his home country while in Australia and that indicates employment is not an incentive to leave Australia.
— Delegate (position number 60197347)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
Such a decision may not be justified. If the delegate fails to consider all the relevant evidence—especially if they overlook evidence that contradicts the inference—it raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and the rationality of the conclusion. In this instance, if the conclusion is based on an unsupported causal inference (a false cause fallacy) and disregards other compelling evidence, then it could be viewed as an arbitrary or flawed decision that may warrant corrective action.
Inconvenient evidence was ignored
Applicant 1 provided comprehensive information and evidence to support his claims of a genuine temporary stay in Australia; reliable and credible evidence relevant to the prescribed visa criteria, ignored by the delegate because it was inconvenient. He disclosed he had an Expression of Interest (EOI) in the pool. Had the delegate looked at his EOI, it would be clear that applicant 1 has followed the correct procedure to migrate to Australia as a skilled professional: he obtained a positive skills assessment outcome, he completed an English test, he scores above the pass mark. Applicant 1 provided sufficient evidence to verify his claims of earning a comparable salary for his occupation in Australia. He provided sufficient evidence of his ties to his country of origin (business interests, assets, family members).
The delegate relied on an assumption to reject the application
Lawful decision-making requires delegates to base their reasons (conclusions) on evidence. I have shown how the delegate manufactured a "concern", which led them to a misleading conclusion based solely on coincidental or superficial associations between events: applicant 1's country of origin and his ability to remain employed while in Australia. A visa rejection based on a false cause fallacy is in my opinion, unlawful, and is no decision at all.
The decision record reveals flawed decision-making without a structured framework
A structured reasoning framework ensures that decisions are based on logic, evidence, and legal criteria rather than assumptions or biases. It is essential for fair and transparent decision-making, particularly in administrative law, visa assessments, and tribunal reviews.
Without applying structured reasoning, decision-makers may rely on subjective assumptions, leading to flawed refusals.
Example of Poor Decision-Making
"The applicant is young and single, which suggests they may overstay. Visa refused."
Issue: This decision lacks structured analysis. It dismisses the applicant’s financial and employment ties without considering all relevant evidence.
Key Components of a Structured Reasoning Framework
A. Identification of Relevant Legal Criteria
The decision-maker must first identify the legal provisions, policies, and guidelines governing the decision.
Example:
For a visitor visa, the case officer refers to the Migration Act 1958, Migration Regulations 1994, and the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) criteria.
B. Fact-Finding and Evidence Analysis
Examining the applicant’s claims and supporting documents.
Weighing relevant versus irrelevant factors.
Determining if the facts meet legal requirements.
Example:
If an applicant claims strong ties to their home country, the decision-maker examines bank statements, employment records, and family relationships.
C. Consideration of Conflicting Evidence
Addressing both favourable and unfavourable factors in the decision.
Evaluating whether negative factors outweigh positive factors.
Example:
An applicant has sufficient funds to travel, but a weak travel history. The delegate must determine whether the financial evidence outweighs concerns about travel intentions.
D. Logical Reasoning and Balancing of Considerations
The decision must follow a logical sequence and not contain contradictions or arbitrary assumptions.
A balancing test is applied to see if the positive factors outweigh the risks.
Example:
“While there is some risk of non-compliance due to the applicant’s age and travel history, their stable employment, strong financial position, and family ties suggest that they are a genuine visitor.”
E. Justification and Decision-Making
The final decision must be clearly justified and documented.
If negative inferences are drawn (e.g., doubts about intent to return), the reasoning must be explained with reference to evidence.
Example:
If an applicant is refused due to a lack of strong ties to their home country, the refusal letter should cite specific shortcomings in the evidence, not just generalised assumptions.
My attempt at writing the decision record
By testing the evidence and making my own findings of fact, I hope to highlight just how absurd a refusal is, when you consider applicant 1’s profile and supporting evidence. The only factor going against applicant 1 is his country of origin, which is designated by the Department of Home Affairs as a high-risk country.
Reasons
The applicant, a citizen of [country A], currently aged [30s], works as a [skilled occupation] for [company name] based in [country B low-risk country]. The applicant is a contractor, working remotely and this arrangement has existed for three (3) years eight (8) months at time of decision. The applicant earns an annual retainer of USD [XX, XXX]. The applicant has been invited to visit Australia by their friend who holds a permanent visa. The applicant will stay with their friend. The applicant has provided a detailed itinerary outlining travel plans to visit multiple states, and partake in sightseeing activities with their friend. The applicant has stated they will work remotely full-time, spending weekends and evenings sightseeing. The applicant has provided evidence of his savings, assets, business registration and investment activities in his home country. The applicant has stated a second reason for the visit is to investigate Australian regions. The applicant disclosed he has submitted an EOI to be considered for a skilled independent or skilled nominated visa. This is the applicant’s first application applying for a visa to Australia.
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
The applicant’s work history shows steady and consistent employment in their occupation, spanning a period of eight years. The applicant’s salary places him in the top 1% of income earners in their country of origin. I note a lower cost of living in [country A] compared to Australia. These facts demonstrate how the applicant has been able to accumulate genuine savings and acquire investments and assets. The applicant’s ties and incentives to return from a stay in Australia include immediate family, business interests and investments.
I have considered the applicant’s situation pertaining to his EOI, which indicates a desire to relocate to Australia permanently. I have considered the remote nature of the applicant’s employment arrangement. Both considerations act as an incentive to remain in Australia.
I have considered the stated purpose of the visit, to visit a friend and to explore Australia. I find that the applicant has adequate means to fund a stay in Australia. Given the applicant’s remote working arrangement and earning a high salary in USD which is comparable to salaries in Australia for his occupation, I find there is little risk that the applicant is coming to Australia to seek employment.
In assessing the applicant’s incentive to remain in Australia, an EOI is not a visa application, nor does it guarantee that the applicant will be invited to apply for a permanent visa. With that said, the applicant desires a permanent move to Australia and that fact alone may outweigh competing factors. The final question is whether on balance, the evidence can support a favourable decision. I find that the applicant’s desire to migrate to Australia might indicate that he is not a genuine visitor and he may seek to remain in Australia beyond his authorised stay. When all the evidence is assessed and weighted, there is no evidence available to suggest this applicant will seek to remain in Australia beyond the authorised period of stay.
How should this decision end?
If the decision is to refuse applicant 1, is that a logical and sound decision that is supported by the legal principles governing administrative law decision-making and the facts and evidence of this specific case? I think not.