Georgi (Migration)

[2019] AATA 4916

Georgi (Migration) [2019] AATA 4916 (29 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Victor Georgi

VISA APPLICANT:  Dr Midhat Victor Fahmi Georgi

CASE NUMBER:  1802400

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/3989574

MEMBER:Melissa McAdam

DATE:29 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

·cl.600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 29 July 2019 at 4:27pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – celebrating Coptic Christmas with family – wife and children remaining in Sudan – civil unrest in Sudan – visa applicant’s employment and income – change of currency – prospects for future family visits – compliant migration history of relatives – decision under review remitted          

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.612, 600.231; Schedule 8 Condition 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 23 November 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 28 October 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 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 visa applicant provided the following information in his visa application:

   a.He is a 53 year old married man from Atbara, Sudan.

   b.His parents, brother and sisters reside in Australia. They are Australian citizens.

   c.He wishes to spend Coptic Christmas with his family in Australia. His parents are elderly and unable to travel to Sudan.  He wishes to stay in Australia from 2 January 2018 until 15 February 2018.

   d.His wife and two adult children will remain in Sudan.

   e.He works as an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, at Nile Valley University. He has his own savings and property.

   f.He has visited Jordan and Egypt.

   g.His father, the review applicant, is sponsoring his visit to Australia. He receives a pension in Australia because of his age. He lives next to his other son who works full-time and looks after him.

5. The review applicant provided the following information in the visa application:

   a.He and his wife are elderly. They want to spend Christmas with the visa applicant. They are unable to travel to Sudan.

   b.He will provide the visa applicant with accommodation and his expenses while he is in Australia.

   c.The visa applicant is married with children in Sudan. He works at the Nile Valley University in Sudan as an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology. The university is giving him 45 days annual leave.

   d.His other son will have leave too so the visa applicant will be able to see everyone and spend quality time with them.

   e.He has savings in the bank and can pay a bond for his son’s visit.

6. The applicants provided copies of the following documents:

   i.The visa applicant’s Sudanese passport.

   ii.The visa applicant’s Birth Certificate.

   iii.The review applicant’s NSW ID Card.

   iv.The review applicant’s wife’s NSW ID Card.

   v.The review applicant’s Australian passport.

   vi.The review applicant’s Australian Citizenship Certificate.

   vii.A Term Deposit Receipt in the visa applicant’s name for 1,150,000 Sudanese Pounds.

   viii.A letter from the Secretary of Personnel, Nile Valley University, dated 12 July 2017, stating that the visa applicant has been working as an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, since April 1991.

   ix.The visa applicant’s Engineering qualifications and certificates.

   x.The visa applicant’s Sudanese National ID Card.

   xi.The visa applicant’s brother’s Australian Citizenship Certificate.

   xii.The visa applicant’s brother’s NSW Driver's Licence .

   xiii.The visa applicant’s sister’s Australian Citizenship Certificate.

   xiv.A letter from Father Gabriel Yousif, Priest, Coptic Orthodox Church and School Council, Atbara, stating that the visa applicant is a well-known member of the church and is of good conduct.

   xv.The visa applicant’s Civil Registration Certificate, confirming his occupation and marital status.

7. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl.600.211 because he was a pensioner in Sudan, he was willing to spend time away from his wife and children, there is civil unrest in Sudan, and he had not provided evidence of previous travel.

   Pre-Hearing Submission

8. With his application for review the review applicant submitted the following information:

   i.Copies of exit and entry stamps in the visa applicant’s passport.

   ii.The visa applicant’s employment documents.

   iii.A letter in which he states: Sudan has settled and sanctions have been lifted because the country is now in peace; they are Coptic Christians and have a solid family relationship; his son is a doctor in a university with an extraordinary income compared to others around him; his son visited Egypt in 1987, 1989, and 2010, Kenya in 1993, and Jordan in 2003. 

9. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 May 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the review applicant’s son, Mamdoh, and from the visa applicant.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Sudanese) and English languages.

10. The following is a summary of the information provided by the review applicant at the hearing:

    a.He and his family came to Australia because it was very difficult in Sudan. Life was very hard and it was hard to make a living.

    b.It is different for his son, the review applicant. Midhat lives a good life in Sudan. He has a house and car. He studied and he obtained a PHD. He teaches at university. He is married and has a daughter and son. His daughter is also married and has a child.

    c.Midhat’s son is studying at university. Midhat’s daughter’s husband works as a mechanic in a car workshop.

    d.Midhat receives sufficient salary to support his family.  He gets a monthly salary of 10 million Sudanese pounds.

    e.The review applicant visited Sudan about three years ago. He and his family stayed with Midhat in Midhat’s house. It is a big house. They stayed for one month.

    f.Midhat has no problems with the government or with government officials.  He has no religious problems. He has no problems as a Christian in Sudan.  He goes to church.  He has no enemies in Sudan.  The recent coup and regime change has had no impact upon Midhat. Midhat has no involvement in politics.

    g.Midhat loves reading. He can read in Arabic and English. He has travelled to Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya, and to Syria in the 1990s. 

    h.The review applicant would love his grandchildren in Sudan to visit him in Australia, after Midhat comes to visit. He understands that if Midhat comes to Australia and overstays his visa it will be difficult for his grandchildren to come see him in Australia in the future.  In Sudanese culture, grandchildren are considered even more important than the children.

    i.He and his family are able to lodge a security bond for Midhat’s visit to Australia. They did this for their mother-in-law who recently visited Australia from Sudan. She complied with all her visa conditions and their security bond was returned to them.

    j.If the review applicant and his family lost a large sum of money it would cause them financial difficulty.  He and his wife receive a pension and they pay rent for their accommodation. His son and daughter both have mortgages on their homes.

    k.Midhat will return to Sudan because he is a university lecturer there. He will not be able to work with his doctorate in Australia without doing a lot of re-training and duplicate courses. He is too old to start from the beginning again here.

    l.Midhat is happy in Sudan. He loves the Nile River and his home area, Atbara.  He attends his church every Sunday.

    m.He wants to visit Australia to see his parents. They are old with health problems and it is now hard for them to travel to Sudan.

11. The following is a summary of the information provided by the visa applicant at the hearing:

    a.He wants to visit Australia for 45 days.  He can take 45 days holiday leave from his job.

    b.He will return to Sudan because his wife, children and grandchildren are there. He lives a good life in Sudan. He works at the Nile Valley university which pays him 10 million Sudanese pounds per month. He also works at two other universities which pay him 4 million SDG and 6 million SDG per month.  He has a total monthly income of 20 million Sudanese pounds.

    c.The government changes in Sudan have not affected him, he has no relations with anything political.  He has no political problems in Sudan. He has no religious problems in Sudan.  He has no problems as a Christian in Sudan.  Christians are well respected in his area and in Sudan.  Atbara is a multi-cultural and multi-religious place. Everyone respects each other and lives together with harmony.

    d.He owns three houses in Sudan, including a house in Khartoum in a good part of the capital city.

12. Following this hearing the applicants submitted letters from three universities in Sudan confirming the visa applicant worked as a lecturer in the engineering faculties of each university and that his salary at each university was as described at hearing. The Tribunal then invited the review applicant to clarify the visa applicant’s monthly salary, as on current conversion rates it seemed he was earning millions of a dollars per month as a university lecturer.  The review applicant responded that the visa applicant does not earn this much and he was unsure how these figures were arrived at.

13. The Tribunal invited the applicants to a further hearing on 25 July 2019.  Just prior to this date the applicants submitted updated letters from the visa applicant’s three university employers showing his salary at each university in the tens of thousands Sudanese Pounds, not millions.  A covering note also explained that Sudanese often describe amounts in terms of the old currency, in use prior to 2007.

14. The review applicant appeared again before the Tribunal on 25 July 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the review applicant’s son, Mamdoh.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Sudanese) and English languages. The following is a summary of the information provided at the hearing:

    a.It is common in Sudan to refer to amounts in terms of the pre-2007 currency. Only banks and the government use the official currency figures.  The Tribunal asked if the applicants could provide any independent evidence of this and they responded they did not think they would be able to.

    b.The Tribunal asked if the visa applicant could provide any other documents to confirm his employment at universities in Sudan. The applicants responded that they would try to obtain further information to submit to the Tribunal.

    c.The Tribunal asked if the visa applicant was able to provide any documents confirming his marriage and the birth of his two children. The review applicant’s son Mamdoh was able to submit copies of the children’s Birth Certificates.

15. Following the hearing, on 25 July 2019, the Tribunal was able to locate the following information, available on the Internet:

    a.Two 2019 articles co-written by the visa applicant on the testing of diesel engines using the jatropha plant, and other blended fuels, published on the Research Gate website. In both articles the visa applicant and his co-authors are described as working in the “Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology- Nile Valley University – Atbara – Sudan”.[1]

    b.A thesis written in Arabic by the applicant in 2009 on water current turbines.[2]

    c.A Nile Valley University webpage (in Arabic) which lists the academic staff of the university’s Engineering and Technology department. The visa applicant’s name appears in the list as “Assistant Professor”.[3]

    d.A travel advice article confirming the applicants’ evidence that it is common for Sudanese to refer to amounts in terms of the old currency. It states:

    “The currency of the country is the Sudanese pound. … The pound was introduced in January 2007, to replace the Sudanese dinar …. The new pound is worth 100 old dinars.  Unfortunately, things are not so simple when it comes to price quoting. Instead of new pounds (which are hardly used for quoting) and dinars (more commonly used, especially when quoting in English), most people still talk in terms of the old pound, although there are no more old pound notes in circulation….  Hence, when a person asks for 10,000 pounds, they actually want 1,000 dinars [or 10 pounds] from you. And just to add to the confusion further, people usually do away with the thousands when quoting in pounds. …”[4]

    [1] Available on the Research Gate website at: Available at:

    [3] Available at:

    [4] Triposa Travel Guide Website, “Sudan – Shopping”, >

    On 28 and 29 July 2019 the review applicant submitted the following information:

    a.A copy of the 2019 article regarding testing diesel engines from the International Journal of Research in Computer Applications and Robotics, co-written by the visa applicant.

    b.The contact email addresses for the three universities where the visa applicant lectures.

    c.The website address showing the visa applicant’s name in Arabic in a list in the engineering section of the Nile Valley University.

    d.The visa applicant’s Certificate of Marriage

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. 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.

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

19. 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 not previously held a substantive visa in Australia so there is no evidence of past compliance or non-compliance by him.

20. 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.

21. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant will be accommodated and supported by the review applicant while in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that he has personal savings and has sufficient funds to support himself during a visit to Australia. There is no indication before the Tribunal that the visa applicant intends or needs to work while in Australia. In these circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied he intends to comply with condition 8101.

22. There is no evidence or indication the visa applicant has any interest or need to study in Australia. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied he intends to comply with Condition 8201.

23. Condition 8503 refers to entitlement and is not a condition that involves compliance.

24. The visa applicant’s intention to comply with condition 8531 is discussed below in relation to whether he genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl.600.211(c)).

25. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant is a married man from Atbara in Sudan.  The Tribunal accepts the visa applicant’s wife, two adult children, and grandchildren also reside in Atbara. The Tribunal considers that the presence of the visa applicant’s close family members in Sudan represents significant incentive for him to return to there after a short stay in Australia.

26. The Tribunal initially had concerns regarding the genuineness of the visa applicant’s claimed employment as a University lecturer, in view of the seemingly implausible salary figures listed in his oral evidence and supporting documents.  However further research and the evidence provided by the applicants have readily confirmed the visa applicant’s employment status, as well as the reason for the description of his salaries in terms of ‘millions’ of Sudanese pounds.  The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has stable and valued income from his work as an assistant Professor at the Nile Valley University and lecturing positions at two other universities in Sudan. 

27. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant’s mother-in-law travelled to Australia in 2014 and she complied with her visa conditions according to the evidence before the Tribunal.

28. The Tribunal gives substantial weight to the good migration history of the review applicant and his family and relatives in Australia. The Tribunal also acknowledges the importance to the review applicant of maintaining a good reputation with regard to his family and relatives’ immigration compliance in Australia. 

29. The Tribunal notes the review applicant’s wish to sponsor other family members to visit him in Australia in the future.  The Tribunal considers this further motivation for him to ensure the visa applicant does not breach any of his visa conditions and that he departs Australia before the expiry of his visa. 

30. In sum the information before the Tribunal supports the applicants’ contention that the visa applicant wishes to visit Australia for about 45 days to see his parents and siblings here, and to then return Sudan.

1. The Tribunal is therefore 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 met.

   DECISION

2. The Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

   ·cl.600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Melissa McAdam
   Member