Farache (Migration)

[2022] AATA 5196

Farache (Migration) [2022] AATA 5196 (2 August 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Abdul Rahman Farache

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs Asia Wraide

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Fatima El-Kheir (MARN: 0962347)

CASE NUMBER:  2005812

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/659654

MEMBER:Naomi Schmitz

DATE:2 August 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

·cl.309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 02 August 2022 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – sponsorship approval – sponsor convicted of a ‘relevant offence’ – ‘significant criminal record’ – assault with intent to rob – demand property with menaces with intent to steal – time lapse since the offending date – changed and matured – offending did not involve any women or children – subsequent drug driving conviction – genuine contrition and insight – best interests of the child – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.20J, 1.20K, 1.20KC, 1.20KD; Schedule 2, cl 309.222

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 20 January 2020 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 27 February 2019 on the basis of her relationship with her sponsor, the review applicant. At that time, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.309.222 because the applicant did not have sponsorship approved by the Minister and the sponsorship was not in force.

4. On 30 May 2022 and 8 July 2022 the representative provided various statutory declarations from work colleagues and friends; screenshots of Western Union banking transfers between 10 May 2020 and 29 April 2022 from the review applicant to the visa applicant and the visa applicant’s father totalling approximately $77,000; a District Court of New South Wales court result/extract confirming a sentence imposed on 30 May 2014 on a charge of assault with intent to rob while armed with a dangerous weapon; a Local Courts of New South Wales court result/extract confirming a sentence imposed on 2 April 2014 for a charge of demand property with menaces with intent to steal; a National Police Certificate dated 29 June 2022 from the Australian Federal Police; a certificate from consultant psychiatrist Dr Jagadeesh Andepalli dated 28 April 2022; a certificate of Australian citizenship of the review applicant and visa applicant’s child; and the Australian passport of the review applicant and visa applicant’s child.

5. Post hearing on 1 August 2022 the representative provided further submissions; a variety of financial documents including bank statements from 2018 until 2022; pay slips/invoices from October 2021 until July 2022; an Australian Taxation Office Activity Statement; further screenshots of Western Union banking transfers between 6 May 2022 until 22 July 2022 from the review applicant to the visa applicant and her father showing a transfer of $11,044.47; and an Australian Securities and Investments Commission company registration certificate dated 29 April 2021.

6. At hearing the review applicant alleged he earns a current annual salary of $140,000. The review applicant concedes during 2018 and 2020 when he spent a large amount of time offshore in Lebanon he earned less. The Tribunal Member has closely reviewed the financial documents and unfortunately there was no end of 2022 financial year tax return evidencing a $140,000 salary. However, there are recent pay slips disclosing the review applicant earns between $2,277.70 and $3,524.40 per week. This equates to an annual salary of between approximately $118,440.00 and $183,268.80. The Tribunal is prepared to accept the review applicant earns on average $140,000 per annum. Pay records provided post-hearing further show that the review applicant works between nine and 14 and a half hours per day five days per week. The review applicant submits the money transferred via Western Union to his wife is ample money to meet their living expenses and needs of his wife and son. 

7. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 July 2022 via Microsoft Teams video to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant who gave evidence via telephone from Lebanon. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing via telephone. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

8. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by Microsoft Teams. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by Microsoft Teams having regard to the fact that the review applicant and representative were in Sydney, the visa applicant was in Lebanon and the Member was in Melbourne. The review applicant consented to the hearing being conducted online.[1] The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

   [1] Email from representative to the Tribunal dated 13 May 2022 at 1:56pm

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets clause 309.222.

    Are the sponsorship requirements met?

11. Clause 309.213 requires that the visa applicant is sponsored by the review applicant, where such person has turned 18; or where they have not, by the review applicant’s parent or guardian who has turned 18 and is either an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations).

12. At the time of decision, this sponsorship must have been approved and still be in force. For visa applications made on or after 18 November 2016 the sponsor must also have consented for the Department to disclose to each sponsored applicant any conviction for a relevant offence, unless the conviction has been quashed or otherwise nullified, or where the sponsor has been pardoned with the effect that he or she is taken never to have been convicted of the offence: cl.309.222.

13. Approval of sponsorship is subject to limitations contained in r.1.20J of the Regulations which sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in a lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsorship, and in r.1.20KA which sets a limit on the period before which certain Parent visa holders can sponsor another person for a Partner visa. There are further limits imposed by r.1.20KB in relation to sponsors charged with, or convicted of, certain offences where the visa application was made on or after 27 March 2010 and r.1.20KC in relation to sponsors convicted of a relevant offence who have a significant criminal record where the visa application was made on or after 18 November 2016.

14. Relevantly in the present case, r.1.20KC(3) provides that the Minister must refuse to approve the sponsorship of a subclass 309 visa applicant if the sponsor has been convicted of a relevant offence or relevant offences and the sponsor has a significant criminal record in relation to the relevant offence or relevant offences.

15. A ‘relevant offence’ is defined in r.1.20KC(2) as an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a foreign country, involving any of the following matters:

    (a)  violence against a person, including (without limitation) murder, assault, sexual assault and the threat of violence; 

    (b)  the harassment, molestation, intimidation or stalking of a person;

    (c)  the breach of an apprehended violence order, or a similar order, issued under a law of a State, a Territory or a foreign country;

    (d)  firearms or other dangerous weapons;

    (e)  people smuggling;

    (f)  human trafficking, slavery, or slavery-like practices (including forced marriage), kidnapping or unlawful confinement;

    (g)  attempting to commit an offence involving any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), or paragraph (h);

    (h)  aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence involving any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g).

16. Pursuant to r.1.20KD(1) a sponsor has a ‘significant criminal record’ in relation to a relevant offence or relevant offences if, for that offence or those offences:

    (a)  the sponsor has been sentenced to death; or

    (b)  the sponsor has been sentenced to imprisonment for life; or

    (c)  the sponsor has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or

    (d)  the sponsor has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more. 

17. Subregulation 1.20K(4) provides that the Minister may decide to approve the sponsorship if the Minister considers it reasonable to do so, having regard to matters including the following (without limitation):  

    (a)  the length of time since the sponsor completed the sentence (or sentences) for the relevant offence or relevant offences; 

    (b)  the best interest of the following:

    (i)  any children of the sponsor;

    (ii)  any children of the applicant who is seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa concerned;

    (c)  the length of the relationship between the sponsor and the applicant who is seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa concerned.

18. The purpose of the above legislation is to protect visa applicants seeking to enter Australia on a partner visa from being sponsored by people with convictions for child sex or other serious offences indicating that the sponsor might pose a significant risk to the visa applicant or any child in their care. The amendments are also intended to strengthen the integrity of the visa program and improve support to visa applicants by giving the Department the ability to share the sponsor’s relevant offences with the visa applicant, so they can decide whether to continue with the visa application and be able to make this decision based on information that may be relevant to their future safety and well-being. The legislative provisions also allow the Department to refuse to approve the sponsorship for people with serious and violent criminal pasts, and thereby preventing a visa from being granted to potentially vulnerable people, particularly women and children.[2]

    [2] Explanatory Statement, Migration Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 3) Regulation 2016

19. The review applicant admits he has been convicted of relevant offences described in r.1.20KC(2) and concedes he has a significant criminal record as defined in r. 1.20KD.

20. The review applicant provided to the Tribunal a national police certificate from the Australia Federal Police[3] confirming he has been convicted of:

    a.Assault with intent to rob while armed with a dangerous weapon and on 30 May 2014 was sentenced by the Downing Centre District Court to a head sentence of three years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole-period of two years and six months. Eligible for parole on 9 October 2016, with a sentence expiry of 9 October 2017; and

    b.Demand property with menaces with intent to steal and on 2 April 2014 was sentenced by the Central Local Court to 12 months imprisonment and a non-parole period of nine months.

    [3] National Police Certificate dated 29 June 2022

21. The representative also provided two court extracts from the New South Wales District Court and Local court which confirm the same.[4]

    [4] Court extract from the New South Wales District Court dated 30 May 2014 and Local Court dated 2 April 2014

22. The Tribunal is satisfied that the above offences are ‘relevant offences’ pursuant to r.1.20KC (2)(a), (b) and (d). The representative confirmed that the offences in paragraph [18] were both relevant offences.  

23. The issue therefore for the Tribunal to consider is whether it is reasonable, notwithstanding these convictions and significant criminal record, to approve the sponsorship, having regard to the matters referred to in r.20KC(4) and any other relevant matters arising on the material.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS

24. The review applicant is currently aged 33 years. He was a young offender at the time of the relevant offences, being aged approximately 22 years of age.[5]

    [5] Revised sentencing remarks from the New South Wales District Court - Acting Judge Williams R v Abdul FARACHE dated 30 May 2014

25. At hearing the review applicant gave full and frank evidence regarding his offending and was extremely remorseful for his conduct. He stated he is ashamed of his prior criminal behaviour and the shame that it has bought on his family. The review applicant stated it was ‘one of the most seriously dumbest decisions I have ever made’ and the result of associating with negative peers of whom he has now cut all ties to. Since his release from custody, he has changed his social circle and is highly motivated to remain on the straight path as a result of having a wife and young son. 

26. The review applicant stated the offence dealt with by the New South Wales District Court related to an altercation late at night between two co-offenders and a victim and involved the use of a firearm. The review applicant was the driver of the motor vehicle used on the night whilst the argument ensued. The review applicant was subsequently intercepted by police as a result of the motor vehicle suffering a punctured tire on a freeway. Police stopped to render assistance and the review applicant was apprehended when police noticed suspicious items in the car, including a balaclava, gloves and a firearm. Sentencing remarks obtained from the New South Wales District Court confirm the review applicant provided an accurate summary of his offending for the relevant offences.[6] The Tribunal notes that the offending did not involve any vulnerable women or children.

    [6] Ibid

27. The Tribunal Member told the review applicant that the Member had reviewed the review applicant’s National Police Certificate which disclosed that since his release from custody and serving his parole, that the review applicant on 12 June 2018 was convicted and fined $330.00 for driving a vehicle with an illicit drug present in his blood. This was of concern to the Tribunal Member as it indicated that the review applicant had not complied with the law since being released from prison and serving his parole. It was also of interest given the review applicant’s wife does not have a driver licence and would be reliant on the review applicant to transport her and their young son around Australia. The safety and best interests of the visa applicant and her son are relevant considerations to the Tribunal.

28. The review applicant admitted to the subsequent conviction. At the hearing the review applicant confirmed the illicit drug was methylamphetamine and stated he consumed the illegal substance whilst attending a party over a long weekend in 2018. He described it as an ‘isolated incident’ and an aberration. He admitted in the past to smoking a couple of marijuana joints a ‘handful of times’ but denied having any drug addiction issues and was adamant he had not consumed any drugs since 2018. The review applicant stated he was highly motivated not to take drugs due to now being married, a father and being subject to urine samples at his place of employment as a result of operating heavy machinery. The review applicant confirmed he has never undertaken any drug rehabilitation, as he denied having any drug issues and the ‘relevant offences’ were not committed under the influence of drugs.

29. The review applicant gave evidence that he used his time in custody productively undertaking an anger management and barista course. He also worked in the prison kitchen and workshop constructing bed framing which involved nailing and using saws, which only trusted prisoners were permitted to use. The review applicant found his time in custody transformative and rewarding. The review applicant spent a large majority of his time in custody in minimum and medium security prisons. As a result of his good behaviour the applicant was granted parole and complied with his parole conditions. There is no evidence that the review applicant breached is parole.

30. Since the review applicant’s release, he has been gainfully working for a freight logistics and transportation company, loading and unloading shipping containers and driving heavy machinery and motor vehicles. The review applicant has had steady employment, working full-time earning approximately $140,000 per annum. The Tribunal was provided with payslips which confirm the same. Pay records and invoices support that the review applicant is a hard worker, working approximately nine to 14 and a half hours per day. His work involves him waking up at 2:30am and returning home at approximately 4pm. The Tribunal has cited various employer and colleague character references which support that the review applicant has a good work ethic and strong and reliable work performance over a five year period (including during the COVID-19 pandemic). The Tribunal further understands that the applicant manages one of Australia’s largest logistic accounts and has positive client feedback.[7] The review applicant submitted he is a valued and reliable employee and paid taxes in Australia.

    [7] Letter from Managing Director John Spyrou of AST Services Pty Ltd

31. The review applicant gave evidence of currently residing with his parents in a five bedroom government commission house. There are no other occupants. It is a 99 year lease, and his parents have resided at the property for approximately 30 years, leaving approximately 60 years remaining on the lease. It is proposed that the review applicant’s wife and son reside with him and his parents. The review applicant does not have any other significant assets other than a motor vehicle. The review applicant has no significant liabilities.

32. The Tribunal Member asked the review applicant about his relationship with the visa applicant. The review applicant and visa applicant first met one another in March 2018, when the review applicant travelled to Lebanon. The visa applicant’s sister resides across the road from the review applicant’s relatives in Lebanon. The review applicant noticed the visa applicant when she alighted from a motor vehicle outside her sister’s home. The review applicant found the visa applicant physically attractive and through family members he arranged to be introduced to the visa applicant and her family. In early April 2018 he obtained the visa applicant’s father’s consent to commence a relationship with the visa applicant. The review applicant and visa applicant subsequently married in December 2018. The visa applicant became pregnant and gave birth to their son in August 2020. The visa applicant gave evidence of the same.

33. The review applicant gave evidence of financially supporting his wife and son, sending regular funds via Western Union. He explained he also sent funds to the visa applicant’s father, as during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon, the visa applicant feared becoming infected and rarely ventured from her home. In addition, she does not have a driver licence and therefore could not drive to a bank to withdraw the funds, relying on her father. Western Union banking transfers were provided to the Tribunal showing the review applicant sent over $81,000AUD to the visa applicant, a significant quantity of money which the Tribunal accepts.

1. Since the commencement of the review applicant and visa applicant’s relationship, the review applicant has travelled to Lebanon on four occasions for varying periods of time including from 22 March 2018 until 1 May 2018; 12 December 2018 until 21 February 2019; 13 October 2019 until 27 December 2019 and 15 August 2020 until 5 April 2021. During the hearing the Tribunal Member shared her Microsoft Teams screen to show the review applicant his travel movement records which he confirmed were correct.[8] The review applicant stated that his physical distance from his wife has caused him significant distress and hardship. A certificate from consultant psychiatrist Dr Andepalli confirms the review applicant has been diagnosed with major depression and anxiety disorder, with the major stress and triggers being physical separation from his wife and son and them not being permitted to come to Australia from Lebanon.[9] The review applicant confirmed he has only seen a psychiatrist once for counselling, and that he has not been prescribed any medication.

   [8] Travel movement records obtained by the Tribunal

   [9] Certificate from Dr Jagadeesh Andepalli consultant Psychiatrist dated 28 April 2022

2. The Tribunal Member asked the review applicant whether the visa applicant was aware of the review applicant’s ‘relevant offence’ offending. She confirmed both she and her family are aware, and despite his criminal convictions, she wants a life with the review applicant in Australia. She confirmed that the review applicant treats her and her son very well, including providing regular financial support as evidenced by the Western Union bank transfers, regular visits to Lebanon and that they communicate on a daily basis via WhatsApp. She stated there is mutual respect between her husband and her family and her parents and family love the review applicant very much and are highly supportive of their relationship. During the hearing the Tribunal Member tested the review applicant’s claims and asked the visa applicant whether she knew about the review applicant’s ‘relevant offence’ offending and the nature of the offences. In response the visa applicant provided a consistent account. She added that at the time the review applicant ‘was hanging out with a bunch of losers and a gang’ and understood one of the relevant offences involved the use of a firearm and a sentence of imprisonment.

3. The review applicant gave evidence that his wife was unaware of his subsequent drug driving conviction, as whenever he attempted to raise it, she stated she did not want to know, would divert the conversation and was focused on the future. The Tribunal Member informed the visa applicant of the review applicant’s subsequent drug driving conviction. Similar to the review applicant’s claims, the visa applicant tried to evade the subject, but later acknowledged the offence and re-affirmed her commitment to the review applicant and desire to migrate to Australia.

4. The visa applicant shares one child with the review applicant who is aged approximately two years. She does not have any children from any other relationship. The applicant has limited education, completing her primary education only and has no formal qualifications. The visa applicant does not have a driver license or any assets. She resides with her family in Lebanon, including her four sisters and brother. The visa applicant has one sister and six cousins who reside in Australia. She stated she wants to build a new family and life in Australia and will be financially supported by her husband. The Tribunal Member asked the applicant whether she had met or knew the various witnesses who had provided character references and attested that her husband was a family man. The visa applicant admitted she had not met any of the witnesses in person and that none of the witnesses had observed her and the review applicant together.

5. The representative submitted that the review applicant wants his son to be raised in Australia with his family and the better health care and education system that Australia offers compared to Lebanon. As all parents, the review applicant wants to provide his child with the best life possible. Furthermore, the child cannot be separated from his mother. The review applicant works full-time and cannot care for his son alone in the absence of his wife, the visa applicant.

   FINDINGS and REASONS

6. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence carefully. Approximately four years and 10 months have lapsed since the review applicant completed his sentences for the relevant offences. The Tribunal does not regard this as a significant period of time, however, notes that the review applicant was aged only 22 years at the time of the offending and that there was significant delay before the review applicant was sentenced for the relevant offences. Accordingly, 11 years have lapsed since the offending date, which in the Tribunal’s view is significant and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has changed and matured considerably and now leads a stable and pro-social life. The Tribunal further notes that the offending did not involve any women or children. The Tribunal places some positive weight in the visa applicant’s favour.

7. Although the applicant has a subsequent conviction for driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of an illicit substance, the Tribunal accepts the review applicant’s evidence that it was an isolated incident and aberration. This is also supported by the New South Wales District Court sentencing remarks, which detail that the review applicant was an irregular user of drugs, smoking no more than two joints per month and does not consume alcohol due to his Muslim faith. There is no evidence to suggest that the review applicant has a drug and/or substance addiction or that the review applicant has any pending criminal charges. The Tribunal places some positive weight in the visa applicant’s favour.

8. Since the review applicant’s release from custody he has been a productive member of the Australian community, gainfully employed and contributed to the Australian economy, paying his taxes. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a hard work ethic and is a reliable and valued employee working at a freight transportation and logistics company. The Tribunal has had regard to all of the character references which attest to the applicant’s strong work record and places some positive weight in the visa applicant’s favour and supports that the applicant has turned his life around. This is also supported by various financial documents evidencing the review applicant’s income. Although some of the references allege the review applicant is a good family person, given none of the witnesses have ever met the visa applicant or observed the visa applicant and review applicant together, limited weight is given in respect of those parts of the statements.

9. At hearing the review applicant gave frank evidence about his offending and expressed genuine contrition and insight. The offending occurred when the review applicant was a young man, suffering from inferior mental decision making as a result of associating with anti-social peers. According to the New South Wales sentencing remarks there is a low-risk of the review applicant reoffending in the future. During the review applicant’s incarceration he undertook rehabilitative programs including anger management, worked in the prison kitchen and workshop. He also undertook a barista course. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the review applicant is highly motivated to make a good life for himself and family and act in their best interests. The Tribunal further notes that the review applicant’s description of his offending was consistent with the New South Wales District Court sentencing remarks and the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant is an honest and reliable witness.

10. The Tribunal has had regard to the best interests of the child. The review applicant has a son aged approximately two years of age. The review applicant provides financial support to his son as evidenced by large and regular funds transfers, is in daily communication and when in Lebanon spends quality time with his son. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant’s evidence that he would not ‘drug drive’ and place his son’s safety (or his wife’s safety) at risk. The Tribunal also accepts that the continued separation between the review applicant and his son would cause a detrimental effect on the overall growth and development of the review applicant’s son. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child that the sponsorship be approved.

11. The Tribunal has also had regard to the psychiatric evidence and the review applicant’s oral evidence at hearing regarding the emotional hardship the physical separation has had on him. It appears that the review applicant’s wife and son have had a positive influence on the review applicant and that their presence in Australia would enhance the review applicant’s wellbeing and work productivity. The Tribunal is also of the view that they would act as a protective factor to prevent the review applicant from re-offending.

12. The Tribunal has also had regard to the length of the review applicant’s relationship with the visa applicant which the Tribunal places some weight on. The visa applicant and review applicant have known one another for over four years. They have been in continuous contact and despite the review applicant’s prior convictions, the visa applicant has given her unwavering support. The visa applicant’s family have also accepted the review applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant and review applicant have been in a serious relationship since April 2018, marrying in December 2018. Travel movement records, photographic, banking and communication evidence confirms they are in a genuine and continuing relationship until the date of this decision.

13. The Tribunal does not consider the visa applicant as vulnerable. Despite the visa applicant’s limited education and qualifications, the visa applicant presented as an intelligent and mature woman aged almost 28 years. She has full knowledge of the review applicant’s criminal convictions, including now his subsequent drug conviction. Her family are also aware of the applicant’s criminal convictions and accept him and support their relationship. During the proceedings the visa applicant was adamant that she wanted to be united with her husband and start a new life with their son in Australia and to support her husband.

14. Finally, the review applicant presented as a highly impressive witness, providing honest and reliable accounts of his offending which the Tribunal places significant weight on.

15. On the evidence before the Tribunal the requirements of and cl.309.222 are met. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

    ·cl.309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Naomi Schmitz
    Member