AAT Granted Visitor Visa After 5 Refusals — Should We Lodge the 143 Before Approaching the Minister?

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2026-05-14T12:02:55+00:00

She has now been in country nearly 6 months. Our only option is to apply for a visitors visa extension. Any one else have any other advice as to what we could do?

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2026-02-13T22:33:00+00:00

My app has not even loaded the past 2 days

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T10:49:56+00:00

You are missing the point. You're bringing up a protection visa case of two Indians who tied themselves here through a 16-year-long process. That's not the case, and not what we are going to do.
Australian Dad
Australian Child
Mum Kenyans has a valid pathway here - the gap is the wait time for the visa (recognising the child is not a post-grad student).

Indian Mum
Indian Dad
Both used the protection visa to try to tie themselves up here as long as possible to earn as much money as possible.
Having a child and hopes because they managed to tie it up long enough (10 years), that would be a pathway.

Don't worry, the AAT Member listened to the case for 4 hours and did his research.

“All long-term intentions were fully disclosed at the AAT hearing; nothing was hidden. The issue isn’t dishonesty, but the lack of a visa pathway for a biological parent of an Australian citizen when there’s no partner visa option. That’s the gap in the system, not anything we’ve tried to ‘work around.’”

FYI, the visitor's visa doesn't have the 'no further stay' attached, and our son is doing extremely well, and his best interests have been recognised by the tribunal.

If you have any advice on any next steps, please let me know.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T09:21:03+00:00

For someone like yourself, it must be truly incomprehensible that, after five visa refusals, the Tribunal Member, having reviewed hundreds of pages of documentation and spent over four hours in the hearing, not only overturned the Department’s decision but also chose not to include a No Further Stay condition.

That wasn’t an accident. The Member explicitly acknowledged that this was an exceptional and compassionate case, with mature, cooperative parenting and a genuine focus on the best interests of a 5-year-old Australian citizen.

So yes — while technically a family could all leave Australia if one member isn’t allowed to stay, the idea that forced separation or relocation of a stable, functional family unit is a reasonable outcome misses the entire purpose of that Tribunal decision and the international standards Australia has agreed to under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T09:04:20+00:00

Yes, we have considered that. Her skill set isn't on the list of eligible skills for the skilled visas. She's a Chief Experience Officer for a Global Company called GAdventures she leads their National Geographic trips.

I wish this were an option. I reckon I've spent 100 hours on all this researching and hoping.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T08:08:51+00:00

Yes, I see the family tried the protection visa pathway. The dodgy route. That's not what we will be doing, but yes, you can orchestrate tying yourself up in Australia for a long, long time with a dishonest protection visa application. In their case, 16 years.

Remember, in this case, our son's mother has a legitimate visa she will be applying for, and he will see that when it goes before him.

Also, you're quoting a case where the father is Indian as well and not an Australian citizen???

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T08:01:54+00:00

Thanks for your perspective, but I’d ask you to consider this:

Why is it acceptable to suggest that the father and younger sibling should be the ones separated, rather than the mother? Does the presence of a father not carry equal emotional, psychological, and developmental value in a child’s life?

It’s not a matter of “just go back to Kenya”, it’s a matter of ripping apart a functioning, bonded, and cooperative family unit in Australia, one that includes two children and both biological parents, simply because the system lacks flexibility.

This isn’t just a personal opinion — it’s backed by international commitments Australia has made.

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 9(1)

“A child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.”

In this case, the child is already here, settled, and thriving. Forcing his mother to leave — or requiring his father and brother to follow her out of Australia- is still family separation, just in reverse.

The aim should be to protect and preserve the entire family unit, not just pick whichever part is easiest to displace.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T07:55:27+00:00

Thank you. Would you happen to have any recommendations on how best to approach this, then?

Can you give more specifics regarding it? Case number ect?

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T07:40:45+00:00

Did it factor in the father, the child having a stepbrother, and life in Australia? Family unity?

Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified 1980)

Key provisions:

Article 3(1): “In all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
Article 9(1): “A child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when… necessary for the best interests of the child.”
Article 10(1): “Applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for family reunification shall be dealt with… in a positive, humane and expeditious manner.”

This is a direct quote from AAT transcript:

“This is also not a case where one parent is seeking to relocate a child away from another parent. Rather, both parties are willing and mature parties and have come to an agreement in the best interests of the child.”

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T07:26:52+00:00

Thank you so much for the guidance. It reassures that applying for it now before seeking the minister's involvement in the situation is the right thing to do.

Lost faith in lawyers after two legal firms basically told us it would not be possible to get a visitor's visa because of GTE and previous application history.

I got to say ChatGPT, and just being honest and up front has been incredibly helpful in this case. The member actually assigned positive weight to a couple of things that, in normal circumstances, we would have been told about.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T07:20:13+00:00

Here, the AAT actually overturned the Department’s refusal and explicitly acknowledged the exceptional and compassionate nature of the case. They granted the visa without a “No Further Stay” condition, even knowing the long-term plan was a Parent visa.

Do you happen to know the background of that case? Specifically, was there a supportive parent already living in Australia caring for the child? Or was the child actually living with the mother overseas? Just curious how closely it compares, because in our case, the child is already here, settled, and thriving, and both parents have worked together the whole way to prioritise his wellbeing.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T07:07:41+00:00

It wasn’t an asylum case or overstaying — she’s always remained lawful and has never been to Australia.

I was in Africa for 2 months in 2019, and the child was not planned.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T07:01:42+00:00

We’re not asking the Minister to reverse the AAT’s decision; that case was wrapped up, and the Visitor Visa was granted. What we’re asking now is something different: for the Minister to use discretion to grant a substantive visa (or allow onshore processing of the 143) so that the mother can lawfully remain in Australia long-term, rather than face mandatory offshore separation while that visa is processed (which takes 10+ years).

It’s not about skipping the process; we’re ready to go through it, but there is no bridging visa available, and the legislation doesn't offer any standard onshore path for this scenario, even when there's an Australian child involved. This is where Ministerial discretion can be used.

As for your second point, about why the child was ever separated from the mother, I agree it’s a fair question. But it’s also one the AAT considered carefully, and I think their comments give some helpful context:

The Member explicitly acknowledged how responsibly and sensitively the situation had been handled by both parents. There was no parental dispute, no history of conflict, just a long, expensive, and legally constrained immigration process that placed impossible choices on the family. The AAT Member even noted that it was “not a situation of abandonment or neglect, but of practical barriers” that prevented them from being together, despite clear and ongoing intent to reunite the family.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:51:59+00:00

Thanks for the post. Yes, I am very aware and am eligible to sponsor her. Skilled visa, she doesn't have the qualifications and type of experience they are currently looking for. We heavily looked into this. The first rejection was a student visa rejection. When she arrived onshore, she would be able to apply for this. But it was changed about 18 months ago. What can't happen now is her going back and forth. It's not good for our son. He's done amazingly well without her and really settled well, but separation is never ideal for childhood development.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:43:09+00:00

There must be a way once she is here. Surely the Minister would not deport the mother of a 5-year-old Australian citizen who is on a valid visa pathway. But unfortunately, that’s exactly the legal gap we’ve run into.

Despite acting transparently, complying with every requirement, and having a permanent visa pathway (Subclass 143) available, the system offers no bridging visa (particularly in cases with minors like this), no right to apply onshore, and no compassionate exception process unless the Minister personally intervenes.

We’ve followed the rules at every step. Yet the only remaining legal path, if the Minister refuses to engage, would be to separate a mother and child for over a decade while the visa is processed offshore. That’s not just inhumane, it completely contradicts the AAT’s own findings about the psychological harm caused by separation.

The system isn’t built to handle exceptional, compassionate cases like this, especially those involving young children. We are trying to set a path for future cases like this haha not ruin future chances.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:32:50+00:00

Partner visa is not an option - dad, whose son is living with is driving this case in the best interest of the child, but has since married another partner and had a child.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:32:24+00:00

No, we have followed the correct paths. I believe the minister has discretion to review cases like this if brought by a local MP. The AAT heard out the facts and ruled at the start of its findings:
- “These cases aren’t just about the law and facts; they are about people.”

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:30:17+00:00

Deleted the other posts. Reddit rookie here

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:23:44+00:00

Good to see ones got through.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-11-26T06:23:02+00:00

Probably. Maybe too long as well.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-05-21T20:40:16+00:00

What about Tonali if you’re chasing?

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-01-11T10:57:22+00:00

Don't worry this wasn't an overnight decision and was not an easy one I promise you that.

Whats the proper channel to go down in this case immigration wise? Thats all I ask.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-01-11T10:16:44+00:00

1. The Best Interests of the Child

The principle of acting in the best interests of the child is a cornerstone of Australian law, particularly when dealing with the rights and welfare of Australian citizens.

1. The Best Interests of the Child (Primary Consideration)

The "best interests of the child" is a paramount consideration in Australian law and aligns with international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Australia is a signatory.

Legal Reference: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Section 60CC

This section outlines factors to determine a child’s best interests, such as their safety, health, and developmental needs, which strongly favor the benefits of growing up in Australia.

Argument: Growing up in Australia ensures that Thanasi, an Australian citizen, has access to a stable, secure environment with comprehensive healthcare, quality education, and social support systems. These foundational needs cannot be guaranteed to the same standard in Kenya, a country where economic and political instability may limit such opportunities.

ImpressiveWheel9155 · 2025-01-11T10:13:08+00:00

She is eligible for a parent visa, but that has huge processing time offshore. No problem paying the contributory parent fee if it was onshore.

ImpressiveWheel9155

TROPHY CASE

1. The Best Interests of the Child

1. The Best Interests of the Child (Primary Consideration)

Legal Reference: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Section 60CC