Shehata (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3876

Shehata (Migration) [2023] AATA 3876 (6 September 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr George Shehata

VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeeq Ross

Ms Iriny Gamal Azer Shehata
Miss Lydia Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeek Ross
Miss Nardeen Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeeq Ross

CASE NUMBER:  2214835

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/3672012

MEMBER:Member Nathan Goetz

DATE:6 September 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision made on 7 October 2022 refusing to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas to Mr Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeeq Ross and Ms Iriny Gamal Azer Shehata, and remits the visa applications back to the delegate for reconsideration with the direction that those applicants meet the following criteria for the grant of the visa:

· cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision made on 7 October 2022 refusing to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas to Miss Lydia Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeek Ross and Miss Nardeen Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeeq Ross, and remits the visa applications back to the delegate for reconsideration with the direction that those applicants meet the following criteria for the grant of the visa:

· PIC 4018 for the purpose of cl 600.213(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 06 September 2023 at 12:47pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Sponsored Family stream – genuine temporary entrant – no previous Australian immigration history – intention to comply with visa condition – other relevant matters – best interests of the applicant – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 600.211, 600.213; Schedule 4, PIC 4018

CASES
Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364
Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) by a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the visa applicants visitor visas.

   BACKGROUND

2. On 7 September 2022 the visa applicants applied for the visitor visas. At the time the visa applications were lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different streams. The criteria for a Subclass 600 visa are set out in Part 600 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3. In this case the applicants applied for the visas seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Sponsored Family stream.

4. On 7 October 2022 the delegate refused to grant the visa applicants the visitor visas.

5. On 8 October 2022 the review applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the decisions.

6. On 21 August 2023 the Tribunal wrote to each visa applicant under s 359(2) of the Act and requested information from them. The information requested is detailed later in this decision record. The letter made it clear that a failure to provide the information requested by 4 September 2023 would result in the visa applicant losing the right to appear at a Tribunal hearing.

7. On 22 August 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant under s 360(1) of the Act and invited him to appear at a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 12nooon on 6 September 2023 so he could give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. The hearing invitation form made it clear that the Tribunal wished to speak to all four visa applicants. The invitation advised the review applicant that the Tribunal hearing would occur by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that a Tribunal hearing by telephone was appropriate in all the circumstances, especially given that the visa applicants were overseas.

8. On 6 September 2023 the visa applicants Mr Rafeeq Ross and Ms Iriny Shehata appeared at the Tribunal hearing by telephone from Egypt, as did the review applicant Mr George Shehata.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND FINDINGS

9. Four separate visa applications were lodged. They were lodged as part of a group of applications.

10. The visa applicants are identified as Ms Iriny Shehata, a female citizen of Egypt born in that country on 28 April 1984 and presently located there, her husband Mr Rafeeq Ross, a male citizen of Egypt born in that country on 23 April 1983 and presently located there, their daughter Miss Lydia Ross, a female citizen of Egypt born in that country on 1 July 2012 and presently located there, and their daughter Miss Nardeen Ross, a female citizen of Egypt born on 4 July 2016 and presently located there in New Cairo, Al Qahirah.

11. According to the visitor visa application forms, the visa applicants applied for the visas in order to visit Mr George Shehata, an Australian citizen who is the brother of Ms Iriny Shehata. He is the review applicant. The visa applications also indicate a desire for the children of the siblings to meet during the Christmas and New Year period. The visa applicants desire to arrive in Australia on 23 December 2022 and remain until 17 January 2023.

12. At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal was told Ms Iriny Shehata had recently given birth to another child named, Miss Sophia Ross born on 2 September 2023. The Tribunal was told that as a result of this recent birth, the visa applicants would like to travel to Australia in December 2024 and remain in Australia for approximately two weeks to cover the Christmas period. This would give the family time to apply for a passport for Sophia Ross, as well as time to make a visitor visa application for Miss Sophia Ross to visit Australia with the rest of her family in December 2024.

13. The mother and father were refused the visas on the basis that they did not satisfy cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migrations. This provides the following:

    600.211 

    The applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to:

    (a)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; and

    (b)whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and

    (c)       any other relevant matter.

14. Their children were refused the visas on the basis of they did not satisfy PIC 4018 for the purpose of cl 600.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migrations. These provides the following:

    4018          

    The Minister is satisfied that there is no compelling reason to believe that the grant of the visa would not be in the best interests of the applicant.

    600.213 

    (1)The applicant satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4011, 4013, 4014, 4020 and 4021.

    (2)If the applicant has not turned 18, the applicant also satisfies public interest criteria 4012, 4017 and 4018.

15. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decisions under review should be set aside, and the visa applications remitted back to the delegate for reconsideration with appropriate directions.

    Do Mr Rafeeq Ross and Ms Iriny Shehata intend to stay in Australia temporarily for the purpose for which the visitor visas would be issued?

    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))

16. In the visa application forms, Mr Ross and Ms Iriny Shehata both declared that they had never previously been to Australia. A search of the Australian Immigration records confirm that this is the case.

17. At the Tribunal hearing the visa applicants confirmed that this is the case.

18. Accordingly, there is no previous Australian immigration history to demonstrate past compliance, or past non-compliance, with any conditions that may attach to the visitor visas. The Tribunal is unable to use any past immigration history to demonstrate that the visa applicants intend, or do not intend, to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visitor visa would be issued.

    In considering whether the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for this purpose, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject (cl 600.211(b))

19. The conditions to which a visa in the circumstances of this case would be subject are as follows (cl 600.612):

    8101:   The holder must not engage in work in Australia

    8201: While in Australia, the holder must not engage, for more than 3 months, in any studies or training

    8503:The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia

    8531:The holder must not remain in Australia after the end of the period of stay permitted by the visa.

20. In the visa application forms, both Mr Ross and Ms Iriny Shehata indicated their understanding that the visitor visas did not permit them to work in Australia, declared that they would not undertake a course of study, understood that if they came to Australia and condition 8503 was imposed on the visitor visa it would limit their ability to remain in Australia beyond the authorised period of stay, and agreed to depart Australia on or before the expiration date of any visa grant.

21. At the Tribunal hearing, the visa applicants confirmed their responses that they had provided in the visa application forms as true.

22. The Tribunal is satisfied, when considering the totality of the evidence, that Ms Iriny Shehata and Mr Rafeeq Ross intend to comply with the conditions that would attach to the grant of the visitor visas. This is a factor that should be taken into account in finding that that Ms Iriny Shehata and Mr Rafeeq Ross genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa would be granted.

    In considering whether the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for this purpose, the Tribunal must consider any other relevant matters (cl 600.211(c))

23. The following documents were provided in support of the visa application:

    1.    A letter (undated) from the review applicant to the Department where the review applicant detailed that he wished to invite his sister and her family to join him and his family in Australia for Christmas, where the review applicant noted that he had previously invited his mother and father, as well as his wife’s mother and father, to come to Australia. The review applicant wrote that none of those people overstayed their visas and no application was made in Australia to extend their visas. The review applicant indicated that his family in Australia consists of himself, his wife Ms Eman Ibrahim and their children Eli and Jonah. This was provided with the visa application form.

    2.    The Egyptian Extract of Birth for the review applicant, indicating that he was born in Beni Suef in Egypt, and that his religion is Christian. This was provided with the visa application form.

    3.    The Egyptian Extract of Birth for the Ms Iriny Shehata, indicating that she was born in Asyut, Egypt, and that her religion is Christian. This was provided with the visa application form.

    4.    An Egyptian National Identity Card for Ms Iriny Shehata. This was provided with the visa application form.

    5.    An Egyptian Passport issued on 3 October 2019 for Ms Iriny Shehata.

    6.    An Australian Taxation Office Notice of Assessment for the review applicant for the year ending 30 June 2021 showing his taxable income as $146,844.70. This was provided with the visa application form.

    7.    A Commonwealth Bank statement for the period ending 9 July 2022 in the name of the review applicant’s wife, showing a closing balance of $891,195.88 credit. This was provided with the visa application form.

    8.    A letter dated 5 September 2022 from Advance for Business Solutions and Professional Training, signed by Ereny Gamazl Azer indicating that Ms Iriny Shehata is the co-founder and managing director of that company since 20 December 2020. This was provided with the visa application form.

    9.    A completed Form 1149 – Application for sponsorship for sponsored family visitors form completed by the review applicant where the review applicant declared his employment as at a pharmacy, indicating that he was prepared to lodge a security bond for each visa applicant if required, and noting that he had not previously sponsored any visitors to come to Australia. This was provided with the visa application form. At the Tribunal hearing, the review applicant indicated that he would be prepared to pay a security bond of up to $25,000 for each visa applicant.

    10.  A letter dated 5 September 2022 from Bayer Ltd, Egypt confirming that Mr Rafeeq Ross has been working at that company since 15 February 2015 and that his current tole is a commercial relation manager, noting his salary. This was provided with the visa application form.

    11.  An Egyptian National Identity Card for Mr Rafeeq Ross. This was provided with the visa application form.

    12.  An Egyptian Passport issued on 3 October 2019 for Mr Rafeeq Ross. This was provided with the visa application form.

    13.  An Egyptian Passport issued on 25 November 2018 for Miss Nardeen Ross. This was provided with the visa application form.

    14.  An Egyptian Passport issued on 25 November 2018 for Miss Lydia Ross. This was provided with the visa application form.

    15.  A letter (undated) from the review applicant to the Tribunal where he reiterated the contents of his earlier letter to the Department, as well as raising that the family had strong ties to Egypt, noting the review applicant’s two brothers who are married with children in that country, as well as his parents, and his brother-in-law’s family. The letter also detailed his brother-in-law’s employment, and the visa applicants’ assets and properties in Egypt. The letter also detailed that the visa applicants have no intention of staying in Australia permanently. The review applicant indicated he understood that some people lie in order to get a visa to come to Australia and enter the country for purposes other than they declare, but that is not the case for the visa applicants. He indicated his displeasure that it is easier for people to come to Australia from countries other than Egypt. The review applicant wrote that he came to Australia the proper way using proper channels. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    16.  At the Tribunal hearing, the review applicant told the Tribunal about his migration story to Australia. He identified that he was a skilled migration and moved to Australia in 2006, subsequently becoming an Australian citizen

    17.  A search of the review applicant’s Australian immigration record does not demonstrate an adverse migration history. That is to say, there is no evidence that the review applicant came to Australia on a temporary visa and, once in the country, applied for a visa to remain permanently in Australia on the basis that he had experienced harm in that country and could not return to that country for fear of future harm.

    18.  A photograph of the pages of Mr Rafeeq Ross’ Egyptian passport that shows travel to Turkey, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon as well as containing a visa to the United States of America which provided him permanent residency for 1 year in 2004, as well as a United States of American permanent resident card. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    19.  Letters dated 15 August 2023 from the Thebes Maadi International School in Egypt certifying that Ms Lydia Ross is enrolled for Grade 5 at that school for the period 2023 to 2024 and that Miss Nardeen Ross is enrolled for Grade 1 at that school for the period of 2023 to 2024. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    20.  A letter (undated) from Ms Iriny Sheta reiterating that she is the CEO and sole director of Advance Training and Consultancy Company in Egypt. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    21.  A list of all the family who have visited the review applicant and his family for the last ten years. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review. The list provided the following:

    1.The review applicant’s mother-in-law Ms Viola Siha and father-in-law Mr Mishail Hannalla were granted visitor visas to come to Australia on 10 January 2022 and they arrived in Australia on 10 February 2022 and departed on 8 April 2022.

    2.The review applicant’s mother-in-law Ms Viola Siha and father-in-law Mr Mishail Hannalla were granted visitor visas to come to Australia on 9 October 2018 and they arrived in Australia on 21 November 2018 and departed on 10 January 2019.

    3.The review applicant’s mother-in-law Ms Viola Sisha and father-in-law Mr Mishail Hannalla were granted visitor visas to come to Australia on 27 November 2016 and they arrived in Australia on 5 December 2016 and departed on 23 January 2017.

    4.The review applicant’s mother Ms Nawal Abdelsaid and father Mr Gamal Bahr was granted a visitor visa to come to Australia on 8 December 2014 and they arrived in Australia on January 2015 and left in February 2015.

    5.The review applicant’s mother-in-law Ms Viola Siha and father-in-law Mr Mishail Hannalla arrived in Australia in October 2014 and departed in December 2014.

    6.The review applicant’s mother-in-law Ms Viola Siha arrived in Australia in January 2012 and departed in March 2012.

    7.The review applicant’s mother Ms Nawal Abdelsaid arrived in Australia in March/April 2012 and left in April 2012.

    22.  A search of the Australian immigration records demonstrates that the review applicant’s mother and father arrived in Australia and departed in accordance with their visa conditions. There is no evidence that they did not comply with visa conditions or sought to permanently extend their stay in Australia during their visits to Australia.

    23.  A search of the Australian immigration records demonstrate that the review applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law arrived in Australia and departed in accordance with their visa conditions. There is no evidence that they did not comply with visa conditions or sought to permanently extend their stay in Australia during their visits to Australia.

    24.  A letter (undated) from Ms Iriny Shehata where she wrote that the family’s aim was to travel to Australia to visit her brother and his family and spend time together. She wrote that the family have no intention to move to Australia because the family’s economic and financial situation in Egypt is very well, noting her husband’s employment at Bayer Pharmaceuticals and her own employment with her own business, and her children’s enrolment in school. She also wrote that the family has a twin house in New Cairo and an apartment in Asyut, as well as motor vehicles. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    25.  A ‘demand deposit transaction history’ for a bank account in the name of Mr Rafik Refaat Tawfik Rous dated 29 August 2023 showing a balance of 72,265.77. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    26.  A letter dated 27 February 2023 from Bayer Ltd, Egypt confirming that Mr Rafeeq Ross has been working at that company since 15 February 2015 and that his current tole is a commercial relation manager, noting his salary. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review.

    27.  A document relating to the purchase of real estate in Egypt (although the names of the purchasers is not readily apparent). This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review. At the Tribunal hearing the Tribunal was told it was an apartment in Mr Ross’ name.

    28.  A family tree identifying Ms Iriny Shehata’s family. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review. It provided the following:

Name	Relation	ID No	Date of birth
Gamal Azer	Iriny's Father	24910112500933	11/10/1949
Nawal Ibrahim	Iriny's Mother	25112242500609	24/12/1951
Ayman Gamal	Iriny's brother	28009062201773	6/9/1980
Marian Soliman	Iriny's brother's wife	28611182500164	18/11/1986
Joneer Ayman	Iriny's Father brother's daughter	31504082501521	8/4/2015
Johnnah Ayman	Iriny's Father brother's son	31712042502233	4/12/2017
Mina Gamal	Iriny's brother	29010022500192	2/10/1990
Merna Moheb	Iriny's brother's wife	29705102500205	10/5/1997

29.  A search of the Australian immigration records concerning Ms Iriny Shehata’s brothers, the wife of each brother, her father’s brother’s daughter, and her father’s brother’s son, demonstrate that none of them have travelled to Australia.

30.  At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal was told that all of those family members remain in Egypt.

31.  A family tree identifying Mr Rafeeq Ross’ family. This was provided to the Tribunal in the course of the review. It provided the following:

Name	Relation	ID No	Date of birth
Refaat Tawfik Ross	Rafeeq's Father	25309122500034	12/9/1953
Zezet Abdel Shahid	Rafeeq's Mother	25305102500121	10/5/1953
Mina Refaat	Rafeeq's Brother	28508052500035	5/8/1985
Ereny John	Rafeeq's brother's wife	28810182500345	18/10/1988
Elina Mina	Rafeeq's brother's daughter	31907232500267	23/7/2019

1. A search of the Australian immigration records concerning Mr Rafeeq Ross’ father, mother, brother, brother’s wife and brother’s daughter demonstrate that none of them have travelled to Australia.

2. At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal was told that all of those family members remain in Egypt.

3. Concerning the current situation in Ms Iriny Shehata and Mr Rafeeq Ross’ home country of Egypt, the delegate recorded the following:

4. “I considered recent reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) which indicate that Egypt is currently experiencing a volatile security situation and high threat of terrorist attack, kidnapping and violence. I find that the prevailing political, security and economic conditions in Egypt, combined with the (applicants’) strong family ties in Australia may be a strong disincentive to return and may encourage the applicant to remain in Australia after the visa expiry should it be granted.”

5. The Tribunal has also considered the contents of the DFAT Country Information Report on Egypt dated 17 June 2019, which provided the following:

6. “Egypt experienced a major decline in law and order in the wake of the 2011 Revolution. A sizeable increase in violent crime, civil unrest and terrorist attacks at this time affected all Egyptians. There was a significant growth in communal violence, which impacted particularly on the Christian community (see Communal Violence) The Sisi Government’s strong emphasis on internal security has largely restored general law and order throughout most of the country” (at 2.38).

7. At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal was told that neither Ms Iriny Shehata nor Mr Rafeeq Ross had ever applied for asylum in any of the countries they had travelled to. The Tribunal was also told that neither Ms Iriny Shehata nor Mr Rafeeq Ross were members of a political party in Egypt, they did not engage in political activity in that country, and that neither had ever been harmed in Egypt due to their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion, or for any other reason. The Tribunal was told that neither Ms Iriny Shehata nor Mr Rafeeq Ross were of any interest to Egyptian police, and that neither Ms Iriny Shehata nor Mr Rafeeq Ross were coming to Australia to seek asylum.

8. Having considered all the documentary evidence and oral evidence provided at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Iriny Shehata and Mr Rafeeq Ross have significant familial ties to Egypt, as well as property holdings and employment in that country. None of their family have any adverse Australian migration history and the fact that their extended family remain in Egypt demonstrates that it is unlikely that the visitor visas are a ruse to flee Egypt because they fear for their safety (or for any other reason).

9. Although the DFAT Country Information Report notes that Egypt has previously experienced a decline in law and order, it is apparent that this has not impacted on Ms Iriny Shehata or Mr Rafeeq Ross. Further, the current DFAT Country Information Report indicates that the security situation in that country is relatively stable. Ms Iriny Shehata or Mr Rafeeq Ross’ owned lived experiences, as suggested by the documentary evidence and their oral evidence, is that they are safe and secure in Egypt. They did not claim that they were persecuted in that country because of their religion.

10. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Iriny Shehata or Mr Rafeeq Ross genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of a family visit.

    Is the Tribunal satisfied that there is no compelling reason to believe that the grant of the visa would not be in the best interest of Miss Lydia Ross and Miss Nardeen Ross?

11. The delegate decision records make it clear that the delegate formed a view that because the visa applications for the parents of Miss Lydia Ross and Miss Nardeen Ross were refused, it would not be in their bests interests to be granted visitor visas. This was because it was not in the best interests of Miss Lydia Ross and Miss Nardeen Ross to travel to Australia without their parents.

12. The Tribunal is not often confronted with a group of visa applications that have been refused on different criteria. The Tribunal is unsure why the delegate did not consider whether the Miss Lydia Ross and Miss Nardeen Ross also genuinely intend to stay in Australia, as it would be reasonable to conclude that if their parents did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia, Miss Lydia Ross and Miss Nardeen Ross similarly did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.

13. While the Tribunal is not bound to only consider the criteria upon which the delegate refused to grant the visa, it is good administrative practice for the Tribunal to do so. The Tribunal has determined that it should restrict itself to the criteria considered by the delegate.

14. With this in mind, the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant under s 359(2) of the Act to request information about whether Miss Lydia Ross and Miss Nardeen Ross intended to travel to Australia without their parents (in the event that their parents were refused visitor visas).

15. In response to the request for information, the review applicant submitted a statement on 30 August 2023 from Ms Iriny Shehata where she wrote, among other things, that the family’s intention is to visit the review applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that this was confirmation that Miss Nardeen Ross and Miss Lydia Ross will not travel to Australia without Mr Rafeeq Ross and Ms Iriny Shehata.

16. At the Tribunal hearing, it was confirmed to the Tribunal that Miss Nardeen Ross and Miss Lydia Ross would not travel to Australia without their parents.

17. Given the Tribunal’s conclusion that Ms Iriny Shehata and Mr Rafeeq Ross genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa grant, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no compelling reason to believe that the grant of the visa would not be in the best interests of Miss Nardeen Ross and Miss Lydia Ross because they would travel to Australia with their parents.

    CONCLUSION

18. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Iriny Shehata and Mr Rafeeq Ross genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted,

19. Therefore, the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations are met.

20. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no compelling reason to believe that the grant of the visa would not be in the best interests of Miss Nardeen Ross and Miss Lydia Ross.

21. Therefore, the requirements PIC 4018 for the purpose of cl 600.213(2) are met.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal sets aside the decision made on 7 October 2022 refusing to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas to Mr Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeeq Ross and Ms Iriny Gamal Azer Shehata, and remits the visa applications back to the delegate for reconsideration with the direction that those applicants meet the following criteria for the grant of the visa:

    · cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

23. The Tribunal sets aside the decision made on 7 October 2022 refusing to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas to Miss Lydia Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeek Ross and Miss Nardeen Rafeeq Refaat Tawfeeq Ross, and remits the visa applications back to the delegate for reconsideration with the direction that those applicants meet the following criteria for the grant of the visa:

    · PIC 4018 for the purpose of cl 600.213(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Nathan Goetz

    
    

    Member