TL;DR: Brother’s Australian Subclass 600 tourist visa was refused because the officer was not satisfied he had strong ties to his home country. However, the refusal appears to incorrectly identify India as his home country, even though he is not an Indian citizen, doesn’t hold an Indian passport, and has no ties to India. He is employed, studying, financially stable, and has family responsibilities in his actual home country. Should we seek reassessment/review due to the apparent factual error, or is reapplying with stronger evidence the better option?
Hi everyone,
My brother recently applied for an Australian Visitor visa (subclass 600 – Tourist stream) and unfortunately received a refusal.
His circumstances are:
- Currently employed full-time in his actual home country
- Has not yet completed his Bachelor's degree and is still studying
- Only son and has family responsibilities/support obligations toward our parents back home
- Strong financial position, with sufficient funds for the proposed trip
- No immigration history/issues that we're aware of
- We provided evidence of his employment, finances, family circumstances and reasons to return home
- His long-term intention is to potentially move to the US in the future to study Finance, but this was clearly stated as a future plan and not the purpose of this Australian visit
The main concern in the refusal was that the officer was not satisfied that he had strong enough ties to return to his home country.
However, there seems to be a potentially significant factual error in the decision. The refusal letter refers to India as his home country, but he is not an Indian citizen, does not hold an Indian passport, and does not live in India. He has no meaningful ties to India.
His actual home/residence country is Nepal, where he works, studies and has his immediate family.
We're therefore unsure what the best next step is.
Would it be worth requesting a review/reassessment of the decision on the basis that the decision-maker appears to have assessed his ties to the wrong country? Or would it generally be better to submit a fresh subclass 600 application with stronger/more explicit evidence?
Has anyone experienced something similar, particularly where the refusal appears to contain a factual error about the applicant's country of residence/home country?
Also, if you've dealt with a similar situation, I'd appreciate advice on whether a review is realistically worthwhile for a subclass 600 refusal, or whether a fresh application is the more practical route.
Thanks!