Ammoun (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3325

Ammoun (Migration) [2018] AATA 3325 (22 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Bilal Ammoun

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Mohamad Ammoun

CASE NUMBER:  1713525

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:                BCC2017/1995995

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:22 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 August 2018 at 4:33pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Tourist stream – Genuine entrant – Previous visit in 2015 – Several visitor visa refusals – Adverse information – Anonymous dob in – Applicant breached no work condition –No evidence to support allegation – Instability in visa applicant’s home region – Economic incentives to stay in Australia – Financially comfortable in Lebanon – Large cash deposits – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cl 600.211, 600.222

CASES
Khanam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009]

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 12 June 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 6 June 2017. 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 Tourist 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 it was not considered that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

5. The review applicant/sponsor appeared before the Tribunal on 3 May 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence by phone from the visa applicant who is the review applicant’s brother overseas. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

6. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. 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.

9. In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting family members. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Tourist stream may be granted: cl.600.221 and cl.600.222.

   Background

10. The applicant is 43 years of age and has four children under the age of 18.  He lives in Beit Younes, Akkar region.  He has a permanent job.  He earns USD1,200 per month.  He also has lands from which he derives an income.  The review applicant stated that it was the responsibility of the applicant to look after their parents.  Culturally, it was the males who had to look after their parents.  The review applicant stated that the visa applicant was living next door to their parents in Beit Younes. 

11. Given the applicant has four children and significant responsibilities, the Tribunal asked why the applicant wished to prioritise a visit to Australia.  The review applicant stated that they wanted to give the applicant a holiday to thank him for looking after their parents. 

12. The applicant visited Australia in 2015 and the review applicant stated that the applicant did not overstay then.  On that occasion the review applicant and his family together with the applicant went to Philip Island for a few days and Mount Buller, for example.  The applicant also visited family on farms in Australia and they had barbeques and generally relaxed.  It was argued that the applicant would be paid by his employer while he was in Australia.  They lived in a village and all the uncles lived close by, so is wife and children could manage for one month without the applicant. 

13. The review applicant stated that the visa applicant was a supervisor on a construction site, supervising several people.

14. The Tribunal put to the applicant information under s.359AA of the Migration Act indicating that on the Departmental file was a note by immigration officials to say that the applicant was refused a Visitor visa in 2009, 2011 and 2017. The Tribunal also noted that there was an allegation on file that the applicant had worked with his brother (the review applicant) when he was in Australia and that he intended to stay in Australia indefinitely. The Tribunal explained that this information was relevant to the review because it may raise doubts as to the true intention of the applicant’s visit on this occasion. The Tribunal also explained that if relied on the information, it would find that the applicant did not genuinely intend a temporary visit and was at a high risk of breaching the no work condition.

15. The review applicant denied that the applicant had worked during his previous visit.  He stated that it was too short a period for that to have happened.  Further, if he wanted to work he could have gone to another country where a visa was not even necessary, such as in Saudi Arabia.  The review applicant stated that they spent half the time the applicant was in Australia (one month), travelling around.  The Tribunal noted that he, his brother in Australia and the applicant were in the construction business which would make it easy for the applicant to help his brothers.  The review applicant disputed this stating that his business involved hiring bins for demolition – the applicant’s job in Lebanon was different.  The Tribunal asked whether the visa applicant might not have worked on the farms they visited whilst he was in Australia, and the review applicant also denied this was the case.  He stated that nothing was grown on those farms.  They just had a house there and when they visited they just kicked back and socialised. 

16. The Tribunal asked why someone would go to the trouble of inventing such allegations to provide them to the Department.  The review applicant stated that sometimes people were jealous and did not like his family to come here, but he did not know who would say these things.  The review applicant reiterated that it was not realistic that the applicant would come to Australia to work for 30 days; it would not be worth it.  The review applicant and his brother would support the applicant financially if necessary.  He sometimes sent the applicant funds for his children and for (the applicant’s and his) parents. 

17. The Tribunal read to the applicant the country information which showed that Akkar’s geographical location close to the border with Syria meant that there had been a flow of refugees into the country, placing pressure on an area considered to be one of the poorest regions in Lebanon.  The review applicant stated that his region had been improving because the refugees brought money with them.  They opened shops and actually the Lebanese people were working for the Syrians.  Refugees were making a contribution to the area.  The review applicant stated that if his brother had wanted to remain in Australia he could have done so in 2015. 

18. The Tribunal also spoke to the applicant.  The Tribunal noted that the applicant started working as a foreman in 2015.  The Tribunal asked what work he had been doing before then.  He responded that he was a police officer with the city council and then he got this job as a foreman.  The Tribunal noted that the applicant had four children, all at demanding ages so why did he wish to come to Australia.  The visa applicant stated that as an incentive to look after their parents, he wanted to come to Australia for a rest every four or five years.  He stated that the children’s mother would look after them in his absence. The Tribunal asked the applicant what the future of the children in Akkar would be like and he responded that it would be excellent in Lebanon.  The applicant stated that the security situation in Akkar was very stable.  They had had problems in 2009-2010 with Syria, but the Lebanese government exerted its power and there was no problem – everything was ok for the future.  He stated there were not many Syrians where he lived in any event – the Lebanese people employed them.  He then stated that in the area he lived in, there were no Syrians. 

19. In response to relevant country information the applicant responded that Akkar was a big area, and the services were really good.  He stated that they lived very close to Tripoli and not inside Akkar.  They had good schools and good services were provided. Previously  the government had been closing its eyes to the problems there, but nowadays services had improved significantly. 

20. The Tribunal also put to the applicant the adverse information comprising the allegations that he had worked in Australia and had an intention to remain in Australia for the longer-term under s.359AA of the Migration Act. The Tribunal noted that the information showed that he had been refused a visa to Australia three times and that he had worked with his brother and that he wanted to stay in Australia permanently. The applicant stated that when he came here in 2015 he came as a Tourist and he only stayed for 25 days. His mother had visited and his sister had also done so and they returned to Lebanon. He was coming to have a rest. He enjoyed his job and he would not have time to work in Australia. He could not work in the review applicant’s business. The applicant stated that if he had wanted to find work he could have gone to the Gulf States but he had his family in Lebanon. In any event he would be paid during the 45 days or so he was in Australia. He would rest and then return to Lebanon.

21. In support of the application the following information has been submitted:

    ·Letter from the municipality certifying that the applicant lives in Beit Younes in Akkar and “works as a farmer and is an owner of not surveyed real estates in the real estate region of Beit Younes.  These properties are planted by fruits and vegetables and have an area equal to 22000 metres square…He has a good reputation”. 

    ·

    A bank account for the applicant demonstrating that from 1 September 2016 to

    
    

    28 February 2017, the applicant held USD915.71 in savings.  The Tribunal notes two significant cash deposits during this time, being one on 17 September 2016 and another on 1 October 2016, for amounts of USD4,000.00 and USD6,493.50 respectively.

    ·Letter by the applicant’s employer, Consulting engineer, attesting that the applicant had been working for the company since 2015 to the present and earned a monthly salary of USD1200 and deserved leave for 45 days to travel to Australia on the condition he returned to his employ on the completion of his leave. 

    ·A copy of the decision by a member of the Tribunal overturning the Departmental decision to refuse the applicant a Visitor visa, dated 19 March 2015, referring, among other things, to the fact that the applicant’s mother came to Australia in 2010 and his sister in 2012, and that on both occasions they complied with their visa conditions.

    ·Evidence of the review applicant business account holding AUD45,698.06 in savings.

    ·Statutory declaration by the review applicant dated 7 April 2017, confirming that he had previously sponsored his mother and sister to Australia and that the applicant also travelled to Australia in 2015 and complied with his visa conditions.  The review applicant also emphasised that the visa applicant only had two brothers (the review applicant and another) in Australia whereas in Lebanon he had 8 siblings.  It was also asserted that the applicant was “financially comfortable in Lebanon”. 

    ·Evidence of the applicant having travelled previously to Australia and associated visa grant.

    ·Updated bank account statement showing the applicant had from 1 November 2017 to 31 March 2018 over USD9,000 in savings.  Two large cash deposits are noted on 19 December 2017 (2,795.00) and another on 23 January 2018 (2,195.59).

    ·Further evidence by the Head of the Municipality of Beit Younes, dated 16 April 2018, advising that the applicant was a farmer and was the owner of unsurveyed real estates in Beit Younes, owning 22000sqms planted with fruit and vegetables, and was of good character.

    ·Updated letter from the applicant’s current employer, dated 20 April 2018, confirming the applicant worked with Nizar Kassem Consulting Engineering, stating the applicant had worked with the company since 2015 and was entitled to a 45 day period of paid leave to travel to Australia.

    ·Detailed submission by the migration agent dated 17 April 2018, referring to the strong ties that the applicant has to his homeland by way of family and land, and that the need for the visa applicant to work is completely obviated because the review applicant would support him, among other things.  The submission also refers to the decision by the Federal Court of Australia in Khanam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 966 in which it was held that the Tribunal must consider the particular circumstances of the applicant rather than make broad assumptions based on information regarding a person of the same nationality or social group.

    cl.600.211(a)

22. 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)).

23. The Tribunal places weight on the fact that the applicant travelled to Australia three years ago and abided by his visa conditions to depart, but that his mother and sister also did so, although the Tribunal notes that travel from the home area of the applicant by his mother and sister occurred at a time when the country were different to those now for the Akkar region, although the area, including Beit Younes situated in the Akkar District, has a history of socially and economically depressed conditions.[1]  That is, the issue of the influx of Syrian refugees was not as large a factor in the Department’s consideration at the time of the grant of those visas. 

    [1]

24. In terms of the applicant, the Tribunal places weight on the fact there does not appear to be any evidence before it that the applicant was not compliant with his visa conditions when he travelled here in 2015.

    cl.600.211(b)

25. 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:

    ·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.

26. In terms of the anonymous allegation made to the Department that the applicant had previously come to Australia to work with his brother and was intending to stay here indefinitely, the Tribunal places no weight on this matter.  Persons making such allegations can be motivated by malice or other less well-intentioned incentives.  The Tribunal has no means of testing the veracity of the allegations and considers that it would be unreasonable to take into account less than probative evidence.  The Tribunal therefore dismisses the allegations outright.

27. The Tribunal places weight in favour of the applicant also having immediate family overseas and accepts that he would not wish to be separated from them indefinitely.  The Tribunal also accepts that the majority of the applicant’s family lives in Lebanon.  Nonetheless, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has embellished the degree to which the Akkar region and Beit Younes in particular, are safe and secure and has significantly downplayed the serious socio-economic issues currently facing the applicant’s home area. 

28. The Tribunal has taken note of the migration agent’s submission in which she states that the Tribunal ought to take into account the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information report which states that ‘DFAT is not aware of any significant security incidents or violence aimed at Sunnis in Tripoli since the plan came into effect.  Tripoli is now broadly stable’.  However, these sentences do not reflect the context within which they were written:

    …Tripoli is enjoying increased stability due to a successful April 2014 security plan implemented by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). DFAT is not aware of any significant security incidents or violence aimed at Sunnis in Tripoli since the plan came into effect. Tripoli is now broadly stable, though vulnerable to outbreaks of renewed violence.

    As with Akkar Province, security in the Beka’a governorate, which hosts substantial Sunni populations (including displaced Syrians), is complicated by an extensive border with Syria. Smuggling across the border is common. The production and trafficking of hashish and narcotics is also associated with the Beka’a governorate.

    There are also instances of Sunnis targeted for not supporting ISIL. In October 2016, ISIL killed seven Sunni religious figures in Arsal in the Beka’a governorate after accusing them of cooperating with the government.

    DFAT assesses that Sunnis are unlikely to be targeted because of their religion alone, and attacks affecting Sunnis are often of a political nature and related to the conflict in Syria. Overall, DFAT assesses that Sunni communities close to the Syrian border face a low risk of being caught up in cross-border reprisal attacks by Syrian authorities. DFAT assesses that this risk increases to moderate if a community is sheltering anti-Syrian regime fighters. In practice, this is only likely to occur close to the border with Syria in Akkar Province in the North governorate and the Beka’a governorate. DFAT assesses that Sunnis in other areas of Lebanon currently face a low risk of violence or discrimination, but that the situation in Tripoli and Bab al-Tabbeneh is susceptible to escalation at short notice.

29. The less than sanguine DFAT country information report about Tripoli and Akkar in general, in terms of the security situation specifically, is supported by DFAT’s most recent smart traveller report dated 19 January 2018, warning that persons should reconsider their need to travel to Lebanon generally, “because of the unpredictable security situation caused by the conflict in neighbouring Syria and ongoing political and sectarian tensions.  The situation could deteriorate without warning”.  The advice also indicates that travellers should avoid Tripoli and northern Lebanon, north of the line from Tripoli to Sir Ed Dinniyeh and Arsal, due to ongoing clashes between Lebanese security forces and militants.  Furthermore, “Lebanese authorities assess that extremists have sought refuge in northern Lebanon, including throughout the Akkar district”.  In terms of the northern and north-eastern Bekaa Valley, DFAT’s advice is, “Do not travel to any region in the northern and north-eastern Bekaa Valley.  The conflict in Syria has led to regular violent incidents in these areas, including suicide bombings, air raids, rocket attacks, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and kidnappings”.[2]

    [2] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Lebanon, 19 January 2018,

1. Despite the lesser concerns the Tribunal might have about the security of the region generally due to Akkar’s proximity to Syria, the Tribunal also notes the following country information relating to the socio-economic factors that combined with the security situation lead the Tribunal to have doubts about whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. 
   
   

   The conflict in neighbouring Syria has had a strong spillover effect on northern Lebanon, including Akkar.  As of 31 January 2018, there were 105,798 Syrian refugees residing in Akkar governorate who had registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). As large numbers of Syrian refugees are not officially registered, the actual number is likely to be much higher. In their annual report for 2017, the UNHCR, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme noted that Akkar governorate had the highest concentration of households without any legal residency (61 per cent) of any governorate in the country.
   
   
   The influx of Syrian refugees to Akkar has placed significant pressure on the region’s infrastructure, including housing and employment. Refugee Hosts notes that there has been an increase in the cost and housing in Akkar due to the Syrian refugee population. The report further states that there has been a decrease in local employment due to the presence of cheaper menial labour.
   
   
   According to the 2017 ‘Lebanon Crisis Plan 2017-2020’ published by the Lebanese government and UN, Akkar (and Bekaa) governorates have traditionally been ‘underserved areas’ when it comes to health care infrastructure. This issue has been exacerbated by the influx of Syrian refugees; Akkar reportedly hosts 10 per cent of the displaced Syrian population.  The plan concludes that in light of this, Akkar is ‘in need of more institutional support’. DFAT similarly reports:
   
   

   Healthcare facilities in Akkar and Beka’a governorates have been traditionally under-serviced and are in need of institutional support. The influx of displaced Syrians has increased competition for healthcare, affecting both displaced Syrians and lower-income Lebanese.
   
   

   In July 2017, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported that the ‘pervasive inequalities in access to basic services’ are evident across Lebanon, including in Akkar where only 53.8 per cent of houses are connected to a public water supply, compared to the national average of 85.5 per cent. Further, 20.9 per cent of houses in Akkar have no running water at all, and 24.8 per cent of houses in the region are connected to a sewage system (compared to the national average of 60.2 per cent).
   
   
   The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) similarly reports that public institutions including schools and health centres need more support in Akkar.
   
   

   Levels of poverty in Akkar district
   
   

   A September 2017 report by the World Bank regarding employment in Northern Lebanon (which includes Akkar and North governorates), found that 36 per cent of the population in this region are poor, compared to the national average of 27 per cent.   In 2016, the OCHA reported that Northern Lebanon, which includes Akkar, is ‘one of the country’s most deprived regions, with severe poverty levels’ and ‘some of the worst unemployment rates in the country.’  According to OCHA:

   Out of a total population of 1.1 million people, 708,000 live under the poverty line: 341,000 deprived Lebanese, over 266,000 Syrian refugees, 88,000 Palestine refugees and almost 12,000 Lebanese returnees.

   Regarding employment, the World Bank states that North Lebanon has an employment rate of 42.8 per cent of the working age population, which is lower than the national average of 45 per cent.  The report provides the following overview of the labour market situation in this region:

   Employment challenges for the Lebanese in this region have been exacerbated, particularly for the poorest segments, by the country’s fragility and history of conflict, and more recently by the influx of more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees…
   
   

   The working age population in the North is estimated at 610,000 individuals, of which 53 percent are inactive, leaving a total labor force of 289,000. Within the participating labor force, 20 percent are employers and 22 percent are self-employed – both largely informal. Just 49 percent of the labor force are wage employed and, of those, only 15 percent are formal wage workers. The remaining nine percent are unemployed.
   
   
   Among those who are working in North Lebanon, the vast majority are in poor quality, low productivity jobs working in enterprises of less than ten employees. The majority of workers are employed in the wholesale and retail trade sector, characterized by low productivity

   The total labor force in the North is expected to increase from 289,000 to 362,000 people by 2025, due to existing trends in the growth rate of the Lebanese working age population and current labor market participation rates. This implies that the regional economy would need to create an average of 8,000 jobs each year simply to maintain a steady state situation in the labor market…
   
   
   The participation rate in North Lebanon is amongst the lowest in the country, while the actual labor force is amongst the biggest given that the majority of its population is of working-age. This high inactivity is driven by the very low participation rates amongst women and youth in the labor market…
   
   
   It is a region that has a strong sense of neglect from the central government that has been unable to progress with the key reforms required to provide a broadbased competitive improvement to its economy…
   
   
   In a labor market providing just one salaried job for every five working age adults, the crux of the problem lies on the demand side – a private sector that fails to generate productive jobs. Tens of thousands of relatively educated, working age adults are unemployed or outside of the labor force completely. More still are stuck in low quality jobs.

   The ‘Lebanon Crisis Plan 2017-2020’ reports that Akkar is the most vulnerable governorate in Lebanon in terms of food insecurity. According to the report, Akkar governorate (along with Bekaa and Baalbek-Hermel) have the highest proportion of food-insecure households in the country. The report states that 20 per cent of households in Akkar have borderline or poor food consumption scores, inadequate dietary diversity and/or insufficient food intake. [3]

   [3] Department of Home Affairs, Australia, Lebanon: CI180316163847746 – Akkar, 3 April 2018.

2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant lives 40 kilometres outside Tripoli but given the above country information, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that, as was claimed at hearing, everything in the Akkar region was stable.  It is true that not every area in Akkar might be affected uniformly by the problems above, but together with other difficulties about the applicant’s own personal circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the country information about the Akkar region in general is difficult to overlook as an incentive for the applicant to change his status onshore.

3. The Tribunal had regard to the decision made by a member of the Tribunal which ultimately enabled the applicant to travel to Australia in 2015.  In the first instance the Tribunal is not bound by other decisions.  Secondly, the Tribunal notes that the decision did not have regard to the country information.  In this case the country information alone is not determinative of the review but together with the applicant’s personal circumstances the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.  At hearing it was stated that the future for the applicant’s four children in Akkar would be fine.  The Tribunal does not accept, however, that were the applicant to succeed in achieving a migration outcome in Australia and he were able to transfer his family here, their opportunities would not be greatly enhanced.

4. It has been submitted that the applicant is financially secure, has a good job and does not need to work in Australia.  Having regard to the information before it, the Tribunal is not entirely persuaded that the applicant’s financial status in Lebanon would prevent him from working in Australia, or cause him not to seek an ongoing migration presence here.  The Tribunal has taken into account the savings accounts submitted by the applicant which denotes over USD9,000.00 in savings.  The Tribunal notes that these snapshots of transactions do not appear to include the applicant’s salary of USD1,200.00 per month.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may be paid in cash and that he keeps his money at home, but the Tribunal has disquiet about the large cash sums that have been deposited into the account, and whether the applicant despite having a secure bank account, would choose to keep large quantities of cash in his home.  For example, the applicant deposited all up USD10,493.50 between 17 September 2016 and 1 October 2016 in cash into his bank account.  Given the significant amounts deposited in quick succession, and given there is no particular pattern to the deposits, the Tribunal is led to query the provenance of the funds as well as whether they represent savings that the applicant had at his disposal, which just happened to be deposited into his account when it was required of him to provide evidence of his financial situation for the purposes of the visa.  

5. Similarly the transaction record covering the period from 1 November 2017 to 31 March 2018 has several large cash deposits in quick succession, leaving the Tribunal to have questions about the origins of the funds and whether these were deposited for the purposes of enhancing the applicant’s claim that he is financially secure in Lebanon.  Without a clear and consistent pattern of savings by the applicant over the years, it is difficult to ascertain the applicant’s capacity to save on a regular basis, and for these reasons the evidence does not persuade the Tribunal that the applicant’s economic circumstances are such that they would act as an incentive for the applicant not to work in Australia. 

6. Even if the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s life savings constitute over USD9,000.00,  the applicant is supporting five dependent persons (as well as himself) and his children are all under 18.  Were unforeseen circumstances to arise it is not beyond the realms of possibility that such life savings could be diminished quite quickly.

7. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant earns a comparatively good salary in Lebanon, this salary has to cover the basic needs of six people in his family and the Tribunal questions why the applicant would want to exhaust some of his life savings by coming to Australia, particularly when the review applicant has only recently travelled to Lebanon to see his family there, including the applicant.

8. The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant also has lands and derives an income from these. Nonetheless, given the applicant has several siblings overseas there is no need for the applicant to remain offshore to continue benefitting from that income, were he to change his status onshore.

9. The Tribunal has taken into account that the review applicant’s financial position in Australia is strong via his business bank account.  Nonetheless, the Tribunal’s regard is for the circumstances of the applicant himself and whether he genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.  The Tribunal has no doubts that the review applicant assists his brother and would assist his brother.

10. The Tribunal has also heard that the applicant needs to return to Lebanon because he needs to look after his parents as he lives adjacent to them.  Nonetheless, given the applicant comes from a family with several siblings, the Tribunal can so no reason why the applicant’s siblings could not make arrangements to care for his parents. 

    cl.600.211(c)

11. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl.600.211(c)).  The Tribunal has taken into account the migration agent’s reference to the decision in Khanam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship which emphasised that a decision maker should not make broad generalisations about all people who come from a particular area or have similar circumstances.  The Tribunal agrees that each case should be assessed on its merits.  In this case, the Tribunal has had regard not just to the country information but has also taken into account that the applicant has significant family responsibilities in Lebanon which make a visit to Australia and the resources required for such visit, inconsistent with those responsibilities.

12. The applicant is arguing that his family members represent an incentive for him to return to Lebanon and not to breach his visa conditions in Australia, nonetheless, it can also be said that his family might represent an incentive for him to provide the family with a better future, if in the long-term he were able to bring them to Australia or at least keep supporting them from here.

13. For all the above reasons, individually and cumulatively, 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

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

    Rosa Gagliardi
    Member