Haidar (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Rayane Haidar against a decision to affirm the refusal of a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, Sponsored Family stream, to her father, a national of Lebanon. The visa applicant, a 51-year-old married man with three children residing in Lebanon, sought to visit his daughter and two sons, along with their families, in Australia. He had previously visited Australia in 2008 and had experienced four prior refusals of visitor visas in 2006, 2008, 2014, and 2016. The applicant stated he was self-employed as the owner of a car wash and intended to stay for up to three months, though he also indicated a one-month visit.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was sought, as required by clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of his last substantive visa, intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, and any other relevant matters. The purpose of the visit was to spend time with family, which is a permissible purpose for this visa stream.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's substantial ties to Australia, including his daughter, two sons, three brothers, two uncles, and grandchildren residing there. It also noted the applicant's history of four previous visitor visa refusals. While the applicant had complied with the terms of his 2008 visa and had not travelled outside Lebanon since that trip, the Tribunal found that, when viewed singularly and cumulatively, these factors did not satisfy it that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.