Aicha (Migration)

[2021] AATA 3547

Aicha (Migration) [2021] AATA 3547 (10 September 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Mohamad Aicha

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Ibrahim Aiche

CASE NUMBER:  1921452

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3251303

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:10 September 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 September 2021 at 14:22pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – sponsored family stream – genuine temporary entrant – incentives to remain or return – elderly parents, 2 siblings and extended family in home country, 2 siblings in Australia – employment and own home in relatively safe part of country – previous compliant travel by review applicant before migrating and by father – review applicant’s offer of bond and intention to sponsor other relatives in future – country information – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.231

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 Home Affairs on 16 July 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2.    The visa applicant applied for the visa on 27 June 2019. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different 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 (Cth) (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 and the review applicant applied for review.

5.    The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 August 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

6.    The review applicant stated that the applicant lived with his parents in Akkar in the countryside, worked and was very happy in Lebanon. He stated his mother and father were old, his father was disabled and the applicant could not leave his father for a long time since he was the only person who could look after his parents. He also stated his parents were very attached to him. When country information was put to him that said the situation in Lebanon was very difficult and that a new government had been unable to form, a currency collapse has caused inflation to skyrocket and left people unable to buy food, while supplies of fuel, electricity and medicine were running short, the review applicant stated that the applicant’s financial circumstances were well enough since his family were in the country side and owned their own house and properties in the village. His father also obtained a pension and the applicant was employed and received a salary and had his own flat above his parent’s home as well as a car. He also had 2 married sisters and extended family in Lebanon. In Australia the applicant had 2 brothers in Australia including the review applicant.

7.    The review applicant stated he was willing to provide a bond of up to $15 000. He also stated he wanted to keep his migration record clean because he wanted to continue to sponsor his relatives. He also stated he had previously sponsored his father in 2013 who had returned to Lebanon at the end of his permitted stay. The review applicant also stated that he himself had returned when he was a visitor and had eventually obtained his permanent visa through marriage.

COUNTRY INFORMATION

8.    According to BBC Lebanon crisis deepens as PM-designate quits over cabinet deadlock Lebanon crisis deepens as PM-designate quits over cabinet deadlock - BBC News accessed 10 August 2021:

Lebanon's Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri has given up trying to form a new government after nine months of deadlock over its make-up, pushing the country deeper into crisis.
Mr Hariri said it was clear that he would not be able to agree on cabinet positions with President Michel Aoun.
The last government resigned in the wake of the massive explosion in Beirut in August that killed 200 people.
Since then, Lebanon's severe economic depression has got worse.
A currency collapse has caused inflation to skyrocket and left people unable to buy food, while supplies of fuel, electricity and medicine are running short.
The World Bank has blamed the situation on Lebanese politicians being unable to agree on a way forward.
Other countries have refused to provide billions dollars of aid until they form a new government that can implement reforms and tackle corruption.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting the review applicant, his brother. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.

3. 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)) however this is not relevant as the visa applicant has not previously been to Australia.

4. 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.

5. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)).

6. The Tribunal has considered the personal circumstances of the applicant who was born in 1998 and lives in Mechmech Town, Akkar, North Lebanon with his parents. He has 2 sisters who are also in the village and works as a computer specialist and has other extended family in Lebanon.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has ties to Lebanon.

8. Although the applicant has his family and work in Lebanon, he also has ties to Australia in that his two brothers are here.

9. The Tribunal considers that the more recent events in Lebanon are a significant push factor for external migration and the applicant's family links in Australia constitute a strong incentive for him to remain in Australia. As stated, even though the applicant has employment and family with property in Lebanon, country reports suggest Lebanon is facing economic collapse. The Tribunal considers that the current turmoil in Lebanon is a significant push factor for external migration. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has considered the fact that the review applicant and his father previously arrived in Australia as visitors. While there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that they did not comply with their visa conditions and despite the review applicant's comments that the applicant is the only person who is able to look after his parents and his protestations that Lebanon’s economic collapse does not affect the applicant because he lives in the country side where his family own property, their own home and his father has a pension and the applicant has work, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were to come to Australia that he would not seek to work and or remain.

10. The Tribunal has some sympathy for the review applicant who clearly wants to see the applicant. However, 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, even if the review applicant’s intention is for the applicant to return and even if a bond were to be imposed.

11. 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

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

Angela Cranston
Member