# 600 visa travel history



## 218417 (Nov 6, 2015)

Hey everyone, I did ask this in my forum post a week ago but it was overwhelmed with other information and most people probably missed it, but apologies for the question repeat

This is about the application uploaded documents where it says "evidence of travel history - required" with a red exclamation point

I'm a bit confused as to why it says required? My husband hasn't travelled before, so no travel history, so it's kind of just sticking out like a sore thumb in his application, and I'm wondering if this NEEDS to have something attached to it before they start looking at the application? Only options in the section are passport scans

Anyone else just leave that blank for their application?


----------



## 218417 (Nov 6, 2015)

I guess people don't know just as I do  well, we will leave it as blank and see what happens. We have already stated through out the application that he doesn't have travel history, so they should already know there wouldn't be anything there.

I'll update this thread once I know any information, for any future questions about this topic from other users!


----------



## Mish (Jan 13, 2013)

It is required because it is one thing they look at for 600 visa's. It can also be a reason for rejection too if they decide to reject the visa.


----------



## jasonrebello (Nov 3, 2015)

*Travel History Matters*

Hi,

I guess travel history or the absence of it does have a bearing on the visa application. It just makes it easier for the immigration officials to process the travel history and see if the person had any negative remarks during earlier travels.

Hope it helps

Cheers,
Jason
Migrant Ninja


----------



## 218417 (Nov 6, 2015)

Mish said:


> It is required because it is one thing they look at for 600 visa's. It can also be a reason for rejection too if they decide to reject the visa.


Yeah but by saying it is 'required' makes it seem like they won't even look at the visa application until it is there or straight out reject it without looking at anything else, which makes no sense because having travel history isn't a requirement for a 600, but it just strengthens the application obviously.

The application asked why it hadn't been uploaded "yet" which confused me because it's like the application is assuming that everyone will have travel history of some kind.

Re: rejection; the rest of the application is solid, and I haven't seen anyone so far get rejected base solely off not having travel history?


----------



## Mish (Jan 13, 2013)

Previous travel history is what they use to help determine if the applicant will return to their home country.


----------



## ampk (Sep 21, 2013)

You can not list any if you do not have it.

This is why they want it if available.

Consideration of the applicant's immigration history may include but is not limited to:
• previous travels to Australia, that is:
• has the applicant previously travelled to Australia and, if so
• did they comply with the conditions of their visa (or, if not, were the
circumstances beyond their control) and
• did they leave before their visa ceased
• previous visa applications for Australia, that is:
• has the applicant previously applied for a permanent Australian visa and
• previous travels overseas, that is:
• has the applicant travelled to countries other than Australia
• has the applicant previously travelled to a country where there would be
significant incentives for them to remain, in which case, did they comply
with the immigration laws of that country.
In assessing this factor, officers may give weight to applicants who had travelled
to and complied with the immigration laws of a country(ies) that has significant
incentives for the applicant to remain in that country(ies), either for economic or
personal reasons. However, officers may have to use judicious discretion if there
is a lack of travel history.


----------



## 218417 (Nov 6, 2015)

ampk said:


> You can not list any if you do not have it.
> 
> This is why they want it if available.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that is what I thought. I just thought the wording of "required" was strange, as if it were on the same level of requirement as a passport scan/photo/medicals etc


----------

