Subclass 200 clause 200.211(2): proposal criteria and regulation 2.07AM(5) (2026)

Yes — a Subclass 200 application can rest on a family proposal instead of the applicant's own persecution claim, but only if six things line up at once. Clause 200.211(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 requires that the applicant's entry to Australia is proposed by an Australian citizen or permanent resident using the approved form, Form 681; that this proposer holds or previously held a Subclass 200 visa; that the application is made within five years after the proposer's own visa was granted; that the applicant was the proposer's immediate family member at the time of that grant; that the relationship had been declared to the Department before the proposer was granted; and that the proposer is not a person referred to in regulation 2.07AM(5). This article draws on the Subclass 200 criteria in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as published on the Federal Register of Legislation, and on the Australian Department of Home Affairs page Refugee category visas (Subclass 200, 201, 203 and 204), as published as at August 2026.

What exactly has to be shown for a proposal to count?

The limbs of clause 200.211(1) are alternatives: an applicant either meets the persecution limb, meets a ministerially specified class under subclause (1A), or meets the proposal limb in subclause (2). Within subclause (2), though, every element is cumulative. A file that satisfies five of the six fails, and nothing in clause 200.211(2) allows a strong relationship to compensate for a missed deadline.

Element	What must be shown	Where it comes from
Proposer's identity	An Australian citizen or permanent resident who currently holds or previously held a Subclass 200 visa	Migration Regulations 1994, clause 200.211(2)
Manner of proposal	The proposal is made on the approved form, Form 681	Migration Regulations 1994, clause 200.211(2)
Lodgement window	The application is made within 5 years after the proposer's Subclass 200 visa was granted	Migration Regulations 1994, clause 200.211(2)
Relationship at a fixed date	The applicant was the proposer's immediate family member when the proposer's visa was granted	Migration Regulations 1994, clause 200.211(2)
Earlier declaration	That relationship was declared to the Department before the proposer's visa was granted	Migration Regulations 1994, clause 200.211(2)
No excluded proposer	The proposer is not a person referred to in regulation 2.07AM(5)	Migration Regulations 1994, clause 200.211(2)

Read as a checklist rather than a narrative, the clause is really a test about dates and documents: what the proposer held, when they were granted, what was declared before that grant, and when this application reached the Department. This is a general explanation of how the rule operates, not an assessment of anyone's case, and a live file turns on the current clause text plus whatever else the Department has published.

Who qualifies as the proposer?

The proposer must be an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and must hold or have previously held a Subclass 200 visa. The "previously held" wording carries real weight: a proposer who has since taken up Australian citizenship is still capable of meeting the description, because the criterion is satisfied by past holdings. The corollary is that holding some other humanitarian visa, without a Subclass 200 in the proposer's history, is not what this clause describes.

Practitioners should also keep the eligibility criterion separate from processing policy. The Department's Refugee category visas page describes a priority-processing policy that covers applicants outside their home country who are either assessed as refugees by UNHCR and referred for resettlement, or proposed by an immediate family member holding a Class XB visa (subclass 200, 201, 202, 203 or 204), or by a close family member holding a refugee category visa (subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204). That paragraph is about processing priority for people who are already eligible by some route. It is not the same sentence as clause 200.211(2), and the two should not be read as identical tests. Where the descriptions differ, the registered text of the Regulations governs.

How is the five-year window counted?

The clock runs from the grant of the proposer's Subclass 200 visa, and it governs when the applicant's own application is made. Assume a proposer whose Subclass 200 was granted on 2 March 2022: an application lodged on 10 March 2027 sits outside the window, even by days, and even where the family relationship is beyond dispute. Nothing in the clause as published provides for extending or restarting the period, and the requirement is expressed as a property of the application itself rather than of the eventual decision.

This five-year period is also easy to confuse with a different one. The Department's page explains that travel to and from Australia runs for five years from the date the visa is granted, after which a Resident Return visa (subclass 155 or 157) is needed to re-enter as a permanent resident. That is a post-grant travel facility owed to the visa holder. It has nothing to do with the proposal window, which expires before any application is even filed.

The absence of a government charge is worth noting in the same breath. According to the Department's page, there is no visa application charge for this visa, so the binding constraint on a proposal file is documentary rather than financial.

Why does the pre-grant declaration decide so many proposal cases?

Two distinct timing requirements sit inside this limb. The applicant must have been the proposer's immediate family member at the time of the proposer's grant, and that relationship must have been declared to the Department before that grant. A marriage solemnised after the proposer arrived, or a child born afterwards, does not repair a gap in the earlier declaration, because both requirements point back to the same historical moment.

The Department's page states the same risk from the other side, in its family unit guidance: applicants must declare all family members even if those members will not be applying, and "if you do not declare a family member in your application, you may not be able to propose them for a Humanitarian visa after you arrive in Australia." For anyone advising on a proposal years later, the proposer's own old paperwork therefore becomes primary evidence in a new file. The question to ask first is not "are they related?" but "where, in the material lodged before the proposer was granted, was this relationship declared?" Note too that clause 200.221 requires the applicant to continue to satisfy clause 200.211 at the time of decision, so the criterion is not discharged once and forgotten.

Does "immediate family member" include siblings, parents and adult children?

The Subclass 200 criteria in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 use the term without setting out its definition, so the Regulations must be read directly and in their latest form. The distinction drawn on the Department of Home Affairs page Refugee category visas (Subclass 200, 201, 203 and 204) is narrower than is often assumed.

The Department's page illustrates "immediate family member" with examples of a spouse and a child under 18, while giving sibling, adult child and parent as examples of close family members. Those examples appear in the priority-processing paragraph, not in a definition, and the distinction the Department itself draws suggests the two categories are not interchangeable. Separately, its family unit list for people added to an application covers a partner, dependent children, a partner's dependent children, and another relative who is a dependant; a non-dependent child must apply for their own visa.

So the honest position for an adviser is this: spouse and minor children sit comfortably within the usual illustration of immediate family, whereas siblings, parents and adult children should be tested against the operative definition before any assumption is made that they can satisfy clause 200.211(2).

What does regulation 2.07AM(5) actually exclude?

Clause 200.211(2) makes the proposal invalid if the proposer is a person referred to in regulation 2.07AM(5). That cross-reference is the whole of what clause 200.211(2) says on the point, and neither the Subclass 200 criteria in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 nor the Department of Home Affairs page Refugee category visas (Subclass 200, 201, 203 and 204) reproduces the text of regulation 2.07AM(5). The bar is understood to concern the proposer's prior conduct, but that understanding is only a starting point for reading the provision, not a substitute for it.

The practical consequences are clear enough even without the text in front of you. The exclusion attaches to the proposer, not to the applicant, which means a well-documented applicant can be defeated entirely by the history of the person proposing them. And because subparagraph 200.211(1)(b) is simply one of three alternatives, a barred proposer pushes the applicant back onto meeting the persecution limb or the ministerially specified class limb; there is no saving provision inside subclause (2) itself. Anyone relying on this provision should read the current registered version of regulation 2.07AM(5) before forming a view, since that is the only authority on who is caught.

Even with a valid proposal, what else must clear?

A valid proposal establishes that the applicant meets one limb of clause 200.211. It does not by itself produce a visa. Clause 200.222 requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are compelling reasons for giving special consideration to the grant, and in a case resting on the family limb the published text directs that consideration to the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia. Clause 200.223 brings in regional and global humanitarian priorities, and clause 200.224 requires that settlement in Australia is appropriate and not contrary to the national interest.

Clause 200.225 is a cap: the grant must not result in the number of Subclass 200 visas granted in a financial year exceeding the maximum determined by the Minister by legislative instrument, nor in the number of visas of particular classes exceeding the corresponding cap. Demand-side context comes from the Department of Home Affairs page Refugee category visas (Subclass 200, 201, 203 and 204), which notes that the number of applications received for resettlement each year is far greater than available visas, and that the decision process takes many months, even years. Clause 200.226 then applies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4007, 4009 and 4010, plus criterion 4019 where the applicant is at least 18 at the time of application; health and character requirements are also set out on the Department's page, including for family members who are not travelling.

Finally, the applicant must be outside Australia both when applying and when the visa is granted, consistent with clause 200.411 and with the Department's "apply from" guidance. Where the applicant has previously been in Australia, clause 200.227 adds special return criterion 5001.

Who can come along on a proposal-based application?

In a combined application, clause 200.311 allows a person to be a secondary applicant either as a family member of a primary applicant who meets persecution or specified-class limb, or — relevant here — as an immediate family member of a primary applicant who meets subclause 200.211(2). The applicant's family must have combined their application with the primary applicant's. Clause 200.321 then requires that the person continues to be a member of that family or an immediate family member at the time of decision.

Two further layers apply to children. Clause 200.228 requires public interest criteria 4015 and 4016 where family members under 18 are included in the primary application, and clause 200.322 adds criteria 4017 and 4018 where a secondary applicant is under 18. Clause 200.323 applies the same public interest criteria to secondary applicants as to the primary applicant. In short, the family that can attach to this limb is a narrower group than the family unit described generally on the Department's page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can my spouse propose me if their Subclass 200 visa was granted more than five years ago?

No, if the window has already closed. Clause 200.211(2) requires the application to be made within five years after the proposer's Subclass 200 visa was granted, measured from the proposer's grant. Because the requirement attaches to the date of lodgement, a later decision cannot revive an application filed after the deadline.

Does a proposal guarantee that a Subclass 200 visa will be granted?

No. Meeting the proposal limb only satisfies subclause 200.211(1)(b). The application must still clear the Minister's compelling-reasons assessment under clause 200.222, the priorities and appropriateness tests, the public interest criteria, and the annual cap set by legislative instrument under clause 200.225.

What happens if the proposer never declared me before their visa was granted?

The proposal limb is not met. Clause 200.211(2) requires the relationship to have been declared to the Department before the proposer's visa was granted. The Department's own family unit guidance reinforces the risk, stating that an undeclared family member may not be able to be proposed for a Humanitarian visa later.

Can a sibling or parent act as proposer under clause 200.211(2)?

That depends entirely on the Regulations' definition of "immediate family member", which the published Subclass 200 criteria relied on here do not reproduce. The Department's page gives spouse and child under 18 as examples of immediate family, and sibling, adult child and parent as examples of close family, which indicates the two are not simply the same thing.

Do I have to pay a visa application charge for this visa?

According to the Department of Home Affairs Refugee category visas page, there is no visa application charge for this visa. The Department also states it arranges travel to Australia for visa holders at no cost, though a further medical examination may be requested in some circumstances.

Must I still be outside Australia?

Yes, at both ends. Clause 200.411 requires the visa to be granted while the applicant is outside Australia, and the Department's page states you must be outside Australia when you apply and when the visa is granted.