4 October 2023

Venkata Pavan Sandeep VADDIPARTHI

401, AYYAPPA TOWERS, AYYAPPA NAGAR
POOL BAUGH COLONY
VIZIANAGARAM ANDHRA PRADESH 535002
INDIA

In reply quote:
Client name Venkata Pavan Sandeep VADDIPARTHI
Date of birth 05 May 1987
Date of visa application 23 September 2023
Application ID 430672873
Transaction reference number EGOZKTPLJB
File number BCC2023/5480738
Visa application charge receipt number 9028445064

Transmission method Email sent to sarath.sfp@gmail.com

Dear Venkata Pavan Sandeep VADDIPARTHI

Notification of refusal of application for a Visitor (class FA) Visitor (Tourist) (subclass
600) visa

Refused applicant
I wish to advise you that the application for this visa has been refused on 04 October 2023
for the following applicant:

Client name Venkata Pavan Sandeep VADDIPARTHI

Date of birth 05 May 1987

The applicant did not satisfy the provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The attached decision record provides detailed information about this decision as it applies to
this applicant.

Review rights
The Department cannot consider your visa application any further. However, if you have
a parent, spouse or de facto partner, child, brother or sister who is an Australian citizen or
Australian permanent resident, that person is entitled to apply for a merits review of this
decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 -2-

An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within 70 calendar
days after the day on which you are taken to have received this letter.

As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day
it was transmitted.

The abovementioned time in which an application may be made to the AAT for merits review
of this decision is prescribed by law and cannot be extended.

Lodging an application for merits review

Applications for review can be lodged online, in person, by post, email or fax to the Migration
and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) as provided below.

Online: online.aat.gov.au

In person or by post to a registry of the AAT:

Australian Capital Territory New South Wales Northern Territory

Level 8 Level 6 Applications made by
14 Moore Street 83 Clarence Street residents of the Northern
Canberra City ACT 2601 Sydney NSW 2000 Territory are managed by the
South Australia registry.
Queensland South Australia Tasmania
Level 6 Level 2 Edward Braddon Building
295 Ann Street 1 King William Street Commonwealth Law Courts
Brisbane Qld. 4000 Adelaide SA 5000 39-41 Davey Street
Hobart Tas. 7000
Victoria Western Australia Norfolk Island
Level 4 Level 13 Supreme Court of Norfolk
15 William Street 111 St Georges Terrace Island
Melbourne Vic. 3000 Perth WA 6000 Kingston
Norfolk Island 2899

By email to: mrdivision@aat.gov.au

By fax to:

Australian Capital Territory New South Wales Northern Territory

Fax: (02) 9276 5599 Fax: (02) 9276 5599 Fax: (08) 8128 8099
Queensland South Australia Tasmania
Fax: (07) 3052 3069 Fax: (08) 8128 8099 Fax: (03) 9454 6999
Victoria Western Australia
Fax: (03) 9454 6999 Fax: (08) 6222 7299

Include a copy of this letter and the attached decision record when lodging any application
for review.

More information about the merits review process is available on the AAT website
www.aat.gov.au or by telephoning 1800 228 333.

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 -3-

Questions about this decision

We cannot consider your visa application any further.

Visa application charge

The visa application charge which has already been paid can only be refunded in limited
circumstances, regardless of the application outcome.

A receipt for your payment is available through your ImmiAccount.

Yours sincerely

Prateek
Position number: 60150015
Department of Home Affairs

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 -4-

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 DECISION RECORD

Application details
Visa class Visitor (class FA) Visitor (Tourist) (subclass
600)
Stream (main applicant only) Tourist
Date of visa application 23 September 2023
Transaction reference number EGOZKTPLJB
Application ID 430672873
File number BCC2023/5480738
Visa application charge receipt number 9028445064

Client name Venkata Pavan Sandeep VADDIPARTHI

Date of birth 05 May 1987
Client ID 32577877519
Visa subclass stream Tourist

The applicant's claims

The applicant has applied for the grant of a Visitor visa (subclass 600) to visit Australia for a
temporary stay.

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.

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 -2-

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.

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.

My decision is based on the following factors

The applicant claims to travel to Australia to visit their sister.

In assessing these criteria, I have taken into account the information provided by the
applicant in their visa application form and the supporting documents including Inviter’s
financial documents. On balance, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficiently
strong employment, economic or other commitments in India that would be sufficient
incentive for the applicant to return to their home country.

More specifically, while the applicant claims to be employed in India with ‘Capgemini’, the
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence with their application of their employment and
income that supports their employment claims. Hence, I am not satisfied as to their ongoing
employment and overall economic circumstances in India. As such, I do not consider that the
applicant has strong employment or economic incentives to return to India at the end of their
proposed stay in Australia.

I have considered the support provided by the inviter. While letters of support and
guarantees offered by family, friends and relatives in Australia and India are important in
assisting the decision-maker to consider the merits of each case, they are not in themselves
sufficient evidence of a genuine visit. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate their own
circumstances and incentives to depart Australia at the end of their trip.

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.

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 -3-

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.

Yours sincerely

Prateek
Position Number: 60150015
Department of Home Affairs

04 October 2023

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au
 -4-

Department of Home Affairs

WEBSITE: www.homeaffairs.gov.au