Salloum (Migration)

[2021] AATA 5477

Salloum (Migration) [2021] AATA 5477 (14 October 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Aous Salloum

VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Yassin Saloum
Mrs Mouna Salloum

CASE NUMBER:  1919429

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2845450

MEMBER:Nora Lamont

DATE:14 October 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicants meet the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

·cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 14 October 2021 at 12:05pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Sponsored Family stream – genuine temporary entrant – political and economic conditions in Syria – no adverse migration history – intention to comply with visa conditions – future sponsorships of other family members – not affected any civil unrest – decision under review remitted

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

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 Home Affairs on 1 July 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Visitor (Class FA) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The visa applicants applied for the visas on 3 June 2019. At the time the visa applications were lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different streams. In this case the applicants applied for the visas 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 (Cth) (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 visas, on the basis that the visa applicants did not meet cl 600.211 because the delegate found the prevailing civil unrest and political and economic conditions in Syria did not give the applicant’s incentive to return to Syria at the end of their visit therefore the delegate did not consider them to be genuine temporary visitors.  

5. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 October 2021 at 10:30 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from both the visa applicants in Syria.  

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

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

   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 applicants seek the visas for the purposes of visiting their son and daughter in law. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl 600.231.

10. 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)).

11. Both the visa applicants have never been to Australia so there is no information before the Tribunal that the applicants have complied or not with the conditions on their visas. However, the Tribunal does not have any adverse information before it. The applicants lived in Qatar for 19 years and complied substantially with the conditions on their visas. Further, they have travelled around the area to places such as Lebanon and have returned to their home in Syria.

12. 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.

13. The applicants have no intention of working or studying whilst in Australia. They also have no intention of remaining in Australia, and there is no indication before the Tribunal or a history within the family of non-compliance or that they would overstay and apply for another visa such as a protection visa. The review applicant came here on a skilled visa and would not want to jeopardise further visits from his family in the future.

14. The applicants are retired. They live in a quiet village in the mountains. They own many properties throughout Syria and derive income from these properties. They live a comfortable life and can afford to come to Australia to visit their son and daughter in law.

15. The applicants are a lovely family, well educated and missing seeing each other, especially given COVID and border closures. The applicants have two sons who still remain and work in Qatar with their families and they have a young grandchild.

16. The review applicant arrived in Australia in 2016 on a Subclass 189 visa and has worked for Telstra for over 4 years with a high salary. He bought a home and lives in Reservoir with his wife. He has no immediate family except for two Aunties who came on Partner visas a long time ago. His wife has no immediate family in Australia. The review applicant simply wants to see his parents and show them the life he has built in Australia.

17. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c)). There is no adverse information before the Tribunal that the applicants would not abide by the conditions of their visas. They have a beautiful home and properties in Syria and are not affected in any way by any civil unrest. They returned to Syria after 19 years in Qatar so there is absolutely no reason to think they would not return after a short visit to see their son and daughter in law.

18. The Tribunal received a large volume of documentation in support of this application and photographic evidence. [1]

    [1] AAT Folio/casemate

19. For the above reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants genuinely intend 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

20. The Tribunal remits the applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicants meet the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

    ·cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Nora Lamont
    Member