Shehata (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas to four applicants. The applicants, Ms Iriny Shehata, her husband Mr Rafeeq Ross, and their two daughters, applied for visas under the Sponsored Family stream of the Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa. The delegate refused to grant the visas, and the applicants sought review by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether granting the visas would be in the best interests of the child applicants, as required by Public Interest Criterion 4018 for those under 18. The delegate's refusal was based on the applicants not satisfying these criteria.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' stated intention to visit Mr George Shehata, Ms Shehata's brother and an Australian citizen, and noted a change in their travel plans due to a recent birth. The Tribunal found that the applicants had provided sufficient information and evidence to satisfy the genuine temporary entrant requirement and that the best interests of the child applicants were met. The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants' circumstances, including their family ties in Australia and their proposed travel dates, supported a genuine intention to visit temporarily.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decisions to refuse the visas and remitted the applications back to the delegate for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the adult applicants were to be considered as meeting the criteria in clause 600.211, and the child applicants were to be considered as meeting the criteria in PIC 4018 for the purpose of clause 600.213(2).