Frequently asked questions

A Subclass 600 is one visa with five streams, and choosing the wrong stream is the first error. All streams share the common criteria (genuine temporary stay [cl 600.211], adequate means of support [cl 600.212], the public interest and special return criteria [cl 600.213] [cl 600.214], and the twelve-month rule [cl 600.215]), but they differ in purpose, in who (if anyone) sponsors, and in the conditions imposed.

| Stream | Core purpose | Sponsor | Mandatory conditions | |---|---|---|---| | Tourist | tourism, family visit, or any non-business, non-medical purpose [cl 600.221] | not applicant-selected: sponsorship applies only for the specified close-relative purpose where the Minister requires it [cl 600.224] | 8101, 8201 (8501 / 8503 / 8558 may be added); if sponsorship is required and approved: 8101, 8201, 8503, 8531 mandatory; financial-hardship cohort: only 8201 mandatory (8503 may) [cl 600.611] | | Sponsored Family | visit an Australian citizen or PR who is a parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister, or any other non-business, non-medical purpose [cl 600.231] | mandatory: an approved sponsor under cl 600.232; a security may be required [cl 600.232] [cl 600.235] | 8101, 8201, 8503, 8531 [cl 600.612] | | Business Visitor | a business visitor activity [cl 600.241] | none | 8115, 8201 (8503 may be added) [cl 600.613] | | Approved Destination Status | a PRC citizen resident in a specified area, on an organised tour run by a specified travel agent [cl 600.251] [cl 600.252] | none | 8101, 8207, 8503, 8530 [cl 600.614] | | Frequent Traveller | a holder of a specified-country passport (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, PRC, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste or Vietnam) visiting as a tourist or business visitor, on a long-validity visa [cl 600.261] [sch 1 1236(6A)] [LIN 21/056 s 9(2)] | none | 8115, 8201, 8503, 8516, 8527, 8531, 8572, 8573, 8609 [cl 600.615] |

The stream drives the conditions, and the conditions drive later strategy. The Sponsored Family, Approved Destination Status and Frequent Traveller streams always carry the no-further-stay condition 8503, which forecloses most onshore follow-on applications, and so does a Tourist-stream visa granted on an approved sponsorship [cl 600.611]; an unsponsored Tourist-stream visa carries 8503 only where it is imposed.

Two evaluative criteria run across every stream: that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay, and that they have adequate means to support the visit.

Genuine temporary stay: clause 600.211

The applicant must genuinely intend to stay temporarily for the purpose the visa is granted for, assessed on whether they complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa they held and any later bridging visa, their intended compliance with the Subclass 600 conditions, and any other relevant matter [cl 600.211]. The weighing is a discretionary evaluation of the applicant's circumstances. Departmental policy guidance also considers purpose of travel, home-country ties, incentives to return, immigration history and funds.

Adequate means: clause 600.212

The applicant must have adequate means, or access to adequate means, to support themselves during the intended stay [cl 600.212]. Access counts (a host or family member's support can satisfy it), but it must be genuine and evidenced, not merely asserted.

Public interest criterion 4011 is an extra overstay-risk test for visitor applicants [cl 600.213], but it applies only to those who fall within a defined "risk factor". Two things trigger it: the applicant has applied for a permanent-residence visa in the previous five years, or the applicant has all the characteristics of a class specified by legislative instrument [sch 4 4011].

If neither trigger is present, PIC 4011 adds nothing. If one is, the applicant must then satisfy the Minister that (given their circumstances in their country of usual residence) there is very little likelihood they will remain in Australia after their authorised stay ends [sch 4 4011]. That is a positive burden: low overstay risk must be proved with evidence, not assumed. The instrument-based trigger should be checked against the current instrument, because the specified characteristics change with it.

A visitor visa is not a work visa, and conditions are where most compliance failures happen. The mandatory set depends on the stream, but three conditions recur.

No work: condition 8101

Most streams carry condition 8101: the holder must not work in Australia at all [sch 8 cl 8101]. "Work" means an activity that normally attracts remuneration [reg 1.03], so payment is not the test: doing unpaid something that would normally be paid is still work, and helping out in a relative's Australian business can be a breach.

Business visitor activity only: condition 8115

The Business Visitor and Frequent Traveller streams carry condition 8115 instead: the holder may work only by engaging in a business visitor activity [sch 8 cl 8115]. That is a closed list in reg 1.03: making a general business or employment enquiry; investigating, negotiating, entering into or reviewing a business contract; taking part in an official government-to-government activity; or attending a conference, trade fair or seminar (unless paid by the organiser). It expressly excludes doing work for, or supplying services to, an organisation or person based in Australia, and does not include the direct sale of goods or services to the general public [reg 1.03].

Study limit: condition 8201

A visitor may study or train, but for no more than three months [sch 8 cl 8201]. Anything longer needs a student visa.

Condition 8503 ("no further stay") is the single condition that most shapes later strategy. Where imposed, the holder is not entitled to be granted any substantive visa other than a protection visa while they remain in Australia [sch 8 cl 8503]. Its bite on onshore follow-on plans works in two layers.

First, lodgement. Because 8503 is a no-further-stay condition, a person who has held such a visa since last entering Australia cannot make a valid onshore application for a further substantive visa, other than a protection visa [s 46(1A)]. The bar attaches when the application is lodged, so an 8503 imposed on a later visa does not retrospectively invalidate an onshore application already validly lodged before it.

Second, grant. Even leaving validity aside, 8503 bars the grant of a substantive visa while the holder is in Australia. It is keyed to being physically in Australia, not to where the application was made, so an offshore-lodged visa can still be granted once the holder is outside Australia, which is how the offshore route works in practice.

8503 can be waived, and the waiver must be obtained before a further substantive-visa application (other than a protection visa) can validly be made onshore [s 41(2A)] [s 46(1A)]. There are two main grounds. The first is narrow: since grant, compelling and compassionate circumstances beyond the holder's control have developed and produced a major change in their situation [reg 2.05], a high bar that should never be assumed. The second is a defined skilled and employer-sponsored pathway: a genuine intention to apply for a General Skilled Migration visa, or a Subclass 186, 187, 188, 191, 482 or 494 [reg 2.05(4AA)]. A waiver under reg 2.05(4AA) does not lift condition 8503 generally: the person's onward application is valid only for the listed skilled and employer-sponsored classes [reg 2.07AG]. So the stream-choice advice is targeted, not blanket. Because the Sponsored Family, Approved Destination Status and Frequent Traveller streams (and a Tourist-stream visa granted on an approved sponsorship [cl 600.611]) carry 8503 mandatorily, they suit a client poorly where the planned onshore follow-on falls outside that list, for example an onshore partner application, whereas a planned skilled or employer-sponsored move has its own waiver ground.

Three separate controls limit how long a visitor can be in Australia, and they stack.

Per visit: the period of stay (condition 8531)

Each grant sets a period of stay the holder may use on any one visit. That period is the visa's own permitted stay rather than a numbered condition, and condition 8531 makes it express: the holder must not remain in Australia after the end of the period of stay permitted by the visa [sch 8 cl 8531]. Staying past that date makes the holder unlawful whether or not 8531 is imposed.

Cumulatively: the rolling cap (condition 8558 or 8573)

On top of the per-visit limit, a rolling cap limits total time across visits, and the two streams that use it use different windows: the Tourist stream may carry condition 8558 (no more than 12 months in any 18-month period) [sch 8 cl 8558], while the Frequent Traveller stream carries condition 8573 mandatorily (no more than 12 months in any 24-month period) [sch 8 cl 8573]. Either is cumulative over a rolling window: departures pause the count but do not reset it, and the window is not anchored to any particular entry, so consecutive long stays can breach it even though each arrival appears to grant a fresh stay. A breach does not cancel the visa automatically; it makes the visa liable to discretionary cancellation [s 116(1)(b)], so the window should be calculated before further travel near the cap.

At the application stage: the twelve-consecutive-month rule (clause 600.215)

This rule stops a person chaining visas to remain authorised to stay in Australia continuously. If granting the new Subclass 600 would result in the applicant being authorised to stay for more than 12 consecutive months as the holder of one or more visitor visas, Subclass 417 or 462 visas, or bridging visas, exceptional circumstances must exist [cl 600.215]. The Regulations do not define “visitor visa” in reg 1.03; Home Affairs operational material treats Subclasses 600, 601 and 651, and former equivalents, as visitor visas for this calculation. Because the criterion asks about the consecutive period for which the applicant is authorised to stay, it should be worked from the visa history rather than reduced to days physically present or an assumption that departure alone resets it. It is a grant criterion, not a condition.

Exceptional circumstances are not defined in the Regulations and take their ordinary meaning, read narrowly in practice. They are typically an unanticipated, extraordinary change beyond the applicant's control (whether in the applicant's own circumstances or those of an Australian citizen or permanent resident) or a need to remain to support a close family member in Australia who has died or has a serious illness or medical condition. The circumstances must be evidenced, not asserted (for example, medical documentation of the family member's condition and the support required), and a wish to keep holidaying does not qualify.

The Sponsored Family stream requires a sponsor, and can require a financial security, both as conditions of grant rather than optional extras.

Who can sponsor

Clause 600.232 allows three kinds of sponsor. The usual one is a settled Australian citizen or permanent resident who is at least 18 and a relative of the applicant, or of a family-unit member [cl 600.232]. "Relative" is a defined term that reaches beyond the immediate family, such as a close relative (a spouse or de facto partner, child, parent, brother or sister, plus a stepchild, stepbrother or stepsister), as well as a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew, but not a cousin [reg 1.03]. The other two sponsors are institutional: a settled citizen or permanent resident who is a member of the Commonwealth or a State Parliament, an ACT or NT Legislative Assembly member, or a mayor; or a Commonwealth, State or Territory government agency or instrumentality [cl 600.232]. Whichever applies, the sponsorship must be approved by the Minister and still in force [cl 600.234].

The security bond

Where an officer authorised under section 269 of the Act asks for it, a security for compliance must have been lodged before the visa can be granted [cl 600.235] [s 269]. The bond is a financial guarantee that the visitor will comply (leaving on time and observing their conditions), and it can be forfeited if they do not. It is a risk-management tool, and it is what most sets the Sponsored Family stream apart from an ordinary tourist visit: the person who lodges the security (usually the sponsor) takes on financial exposure for the visitor's compliance.

Whether a visitor refusal can go to the ART turns on where the application was made and, for offshore refusals, on a sponsor or close-relative connection. It has to be planned at lodgement, because the facts that create the review right must already be in the application.

Onshore refusals: reviewable

A refusal of a visa that could be granted onshore, where the applicant applied while in the migration zone, is a reviewable migration decision, provided the decision was not made while the applicant was in immigration clearance, and the applicant was not a person who had been refused immigration clearance and had not subsequently been immigration cleared [s 338(2)]. The visa applicant is the person who seeks the review, and must be physically present in the migration zone when lodging it [s 347A(2)].

Offshore refusals: three review routes

An offshore visitor refusal is not generally reviewable. Three routes matter for Subclass 600. First, the Sponsored Family stream: because a grant criterion is that the applicant is sponsored, the refusal is reviewable, but only where the sponsor is one of the entities listed in s 338(5)(b)(i)-(v): an Australian citizen, a company or partnership operating in the migration zone, a permanent-visa holder, or a New Zealand citizen holding a special category visa; and it is the sponsor who applies [s 338(5)] [s 347A(1)(b)]. A government-agency sponsor under cl 600.232(4) falls outside that list, so that sponsorship route creates no offshore review right. Second, a Tourist-stream visit to a close family member: where a grant criterion is that the applicant intends to visit an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is their parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister, and particulars of that relative are included in the application, the refusal is reviewable [s 338(7)], and it is the relative who applies [s 347A(1)(c)]. That second list is deliberately narrow (parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister only) and is narrower than the "relative" who can sponsor under the Sponsored Family stream: visiting a grandparent, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew does not create this offshore review right, even though such a person can be a sponsor. Third, the security criterion in the Sponsored Family stream: where an authorised officer has required a security and a criterion for grant is that the security has been lodged [cl 600.235], a decision that relates to requiring the security and relates to the refusal of the visa is prescribed as a reviewable migration decision in its own right [s 338(9)] [reg 4.02(4)(f)]. On this route the review belongs to the visa applicant, the non-citizen in relation to whom the decision is made, not to the sponsor [reg 4.02(5)(e)] [s 347A(1)(d)], and because the route rests on prescription rather than on s 338(5), it does not depend on the sponsor being one of the listed entities.

The naming trap

The Tourist-stream close-relative route expressly requires the relative's particulars to be included in the application [s 338(7)]. The Sponsored Family route instead turns on sponsorship being a criterion for grant [s 338(5)]; the sponsor must still be an approved and therefore identified sponsor. A relationship added after refusal does not create a review right. An offshore refusal that is neither sponsored nor tied to a named close relative (an ordinary tourist or a business visitor refusal) carries no merits review at all, which makes the quality of the original application decisive.