Abboud (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1590

Abboud (Migration) [2018] AATA 1590 (6 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Toufic Abboud

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Imad Abboud

CASE NUMBER:  1715599

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2084181

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:6 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Statement made on 06 March 2018 at 2:23pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visa) – Sponsored Family stream – Absence of a compelling reason for the visit – Age and occupation – Economic pressures in Lebanon – Opportunities to engage in work in Australia – Genuine intention to stay temporarily

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 600.211, 600.231, 600.612, Schedule 8, Condition 8101, 8201, 8503, 8531

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 3 July 2017 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 7 June 2017. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with four streams. In this case the applicant applied for the visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Sponsored Family stream.

3. The criteria for a Subclass 600 visa are set out in Part 600 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl.600.211, which requires the visa applicant to satisfy the Minister that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl.600.211 because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends only to visit Australia temporarily.

5. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 February 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The visa applicant is a 24 year old single man from Akkar, North Lebanon.  He has parents, 2 sisters and two brothers in Lebanon and a brother in Ukraine and one in Germany.  He seeks the visa to visit his uncle and relatives in Australia.  He is employed as a master welder in a company in Akkar for the past three years. He provides evidence of his account with the National Fund of Social Security, indicating his employment since 2014, certification from the Municipality of his residence and family registers evidencing family relationship. 

8. Before the Tribunal the review applicant gave evidence of his own migration background, current circumstances and the circumstances of the visa applicant.  He is married and has four children aged between 4 and 9 years and a new baby on the way.  He lives in a 7 bedroom house which he rents. Presently as well as his own family, he has another nephew, Hussain (who recently arrived) and his new wife staying with them, though this is a temporary arrangement only. The review applicant works as a welder in a fencing company, which is owned by his cousin.  He migrated to Australia sponsored by his wife, whose father is his cousin. The review applicant has a large extended family in Australia including numerous cousins and their families. They have all been here for many years.  His nephew Hussain (who is presently staying with him) is the most recent arrival.  He was sponsored by his wife.  She had come about 6-7 years ago as the wife of someone else, but that relationship ended and she went back to Lebanon and married Hussain. Apart from Hussain, he named three other relatives who had arrived in the past 10 years. The only other relative the review applicant had sponsored is the visa applicant who came for a visit in 2012 and returned.

9. In Lebanon the review applicant has his parents, 4 brothers and 5 sisters. They are all working and all are financially comfortable and relatively well off. They all own their own homes.  They all live in the same area, in close proximity to each other.  The visa applicant lives with his parents and siblings. He has two brothers overseas, one in Germany and one in Ukraine. Both went to study.  The visa applicant works as a welder and has been with the same employer since he began working in 2014. Prior to that he was at school. His father is a retired soldier and receives a government pension.  He now has interests in construction and property development and has given various properties to his children.  The visa applicant owns land, a car and a shop that his father gave to him which he leases out. Evidence of these assets were provided with the application. He is single and has no current plans to marry.

10. The Tribunal put to the review applicant its concerns, given country information before it about the economic and security situation in North Lebanon and the fact that the visa applicant is young, single and works in the same field as the review applicant.  It may therefore have concerns he will engage in work here and/or overstay.  In response the review applicant said the visa applicant came and complied in 2012.  The situation was much worse in terms of security and economics then, and yet he did not stay. Now he has work which is continuous, and the review applicant will be supporting him so he has no reason to work or stay. The review applicant said the visa applicant will abide by the law and will not seek to cause problems for him. The review applicant also told the Tribunal he returned to Lebanon last year with all of his family including the children and stayed for 4 months. They experienced no safety or security issues. 

11. The Tribunal spoke to the visa applicant by telephone.  He told the Tribunal he lives in Akkar with his parents and siblings.  He has one brother in Germany and one in Ukraine.  He works as a welder, with the same employer since 2014.  He owns land, a shop which he leases out, and a car. He was given some of these assets by his father, and bought others with his own money. His father is a retired soldier and gets a government pension, he also has a shop under the house. 

12. Regarding the country information which the Tribunal put to him, that there are economic and security issues in North Lebanon due to the neighbouring conflict in Syria, he said he has no economic pressures because he has ongoing and continuous work.  He just wants to come to Australia for a visit and will return.  His incentive to return is his parents and family and work there. He came previously and he complied and returned. 

13. The review applicant’s representative said that the review applicant has previously sponsored the visa applicant and also his father, and they complied with visa conditions. Regarding the country conditions, if the visa applicant wanted to live in Australia given his family connections, he has other legal pathways he could consider such as 457 visas.  The review applicant has recently travelled to the visa applicant’s area with his family and this supports that it is safe and secure there. She undertook to provide further details of family members migration histories and evidence of the review applicant’s capacity to provide a financial security if requested.

14. On 28 February the review applicant’s representative provided two pages from the review applicant’s bank statement showing deposits amounting to $29,000 on the 27 February 2018 into the account and a page listing the names and dates of birth of 5 individuals, no other information provided to explain who they were in terms of family relationship. 

15. The issue in this case is whether cl.600.211 is met, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to 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; whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and any other relevant matter.

16. In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting his uncle and relatives in Australia. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl.600.231.

17. In considering whether a visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for this purpose, the Tribunal must consider whether he or she has complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa held, or any subsequent bridging visa (cl.600.211(a)). The visa applicant has previously travelled to Australia on a visitor visa in 2012 and returned within the period of the visit.  Given there is no evidence to the contrary therefore, the Tribunal accepts that he complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa held.

18. The Tribunal must also consider whether the visa applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject (cl.600.211(b)). The conditions to which a visa in the circumstances of this case would be subject are as follows (cl.600.612): 8101 – must not work in Australia; 8201 – must not engage in study or training in Australia for more than 3 months; 8503 – not entitled to a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while remaining in Australia; 8531 – must not remain in Australia after end of permitted stay.

19. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl.600.211(c)). On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence before it, the Tribunal makes the following findings. It accepts the visa applicant is 24 years old and single.  It accepts he lives with his parents and siblings and he works as a welder with the same employer since 2014 and has ongoing employment to return to.  It accepts that he has land, a car and a shop he leases out. On the basis of these findings, it accepts that he has close family ties, and relatively stable and comfortable financial circumstances in Lebanon and these are strong factors in favour of him returning.  In Australia the visa applicant has various extended relatives including uncles and cousins.  The Tribunal notes the review applicant is in the same occupation as the visa applicant and his cousin is his employer, therefore the visa applicant would have opportunities to engage in work. 

20. The Tribunal has also taken into account country information before it which indicates that Lebanon is currently experiencing a period of sustained low growth and that poverty is concentrated in Beka’a and the North Governorates.  DFAT considers that limited economic activity, exacerbated by the influx of displaced Syrians is a push factor for external migration.[1]

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report on Lebanon, pp6-7, 9; OCHA , Lebanon: North and Akkar Governorates Profile (August 2016): >

    Weighing all of the above, and placing weight on the independent information of the relative economic pressures and levels of poverty in North Lebanon, the visa applicant’s age and occupation and opportunities to engage in work in Australia through family connections, together with the absence of a compelling reason for the visit at this time, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant’s intentions to only visit Australia is genuine. 

21. The Tribunal has considered whether requesting a security would make a difference to its concerns about compliance with conditions, and notes the provision by the review applicant of evidence of funds in his bank account to show capacity to provide a financial security. The Tribunal has considered this evidence, but given that the funds were deposited the day before, and on his own evidence of his income and family circumstances and transactions in his bank account, it is clear these funds were obtained from elsewhere as opposed to being his accumulated savings.  In these circumstances the Tribunal is not convinced that the forfeiture of a financial security would be a strong incentive for the visa applicant to comply in this case.   

22. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, and finds that the requirements of cl.600.211 are not met.

    DECISION

23. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

    Meena Sripathy
    Member