Saeed (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa by an applicant who was outside Australia at the time of application. The applicant sought to satisfy the visa requirements through alternative criteria, specifically by demonstrating substantial ties to Australia. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the visa, was brought before Deputy President Justin Owen of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the alternative requirements for the visa as set out in clause 155.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had been lawfully present in Australia for a sufficient period to meet subclause 155.212(2), and if not, whether the applicant possessed substantial business, cultural, employment, or personal ties with Australia that were of benefit to Australia, as required by subclause 155.212(3). The Tribunal also considered whether there were compelling reasons for the applicant's absence from Australia, a condition linked to the substantial ties criterion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirement of having been lawfully present in Australia for at least two years in the five years preceding the visa application, as evidence indicated only 17 days of such presence. Consequently, the Tribunal examined the substantial ties criterion under subclause 155.212(3). While the applicant claimed substantial personal ties through a strong relationship with his sister, who is a General Practitioner and single mother in Australia, and potential future business ventures, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these ties were of benefit to Australia. The Tribunal noted the absence of dependency in the personal relationship and that the claimed business ties were speculative. Furthermore, no claim or evidence was presented to suggest the applicant was a member of a family unit of a person who met the visa requirements.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.