Sheshem (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for Visitor (Class FA) visas, Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Sponsored Family stream), made by Sleiman and Sara. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visas were granted, as required by clause 600.211 of the Regulations. This involved assessing whether they had complied substantially with the conditions of any previous visas, intended to comply with the conditions of the proposed visas, and considering all other relevant matters.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants met the genuine temporary entrant requirement under cl.600.211. This involved considering their intention to comply with visa conditions, including not working (cl.8101), not engaging in study for more than three months (cl.8201), not remaining in Australia after the visa expiry (cl.8531), and the implications of the mandatory "no further stay" condition (cl.8503). The Tribunal also had to consider other relevant matters, such as their financial capacity, employment circumstances, family ties in Australia and their home country, and their migration history.

The Tribunal found that the applicants intended to comply with conditions 8101 and 8201. It noted that condition 8503 was an entitlement and not subject to compliance. Regarding other relevant matters, the Tribunal accepted evidence of substantial savings and long-term employment for Sleiman, who was paid in US dollars, and some employment for Sara, also paid in US dollars. While Sara had family in Australia, the Tribunal distinguished their migration histories from hers, noting her current circumstances. The Tribunal also considered country information regarding Lebanon's economic situation and religious freedom, finding the applicants were somewhat insulated from economic hardship due to their US dollar income and Sleiman's stable employment. Despite the incentive for Sara to remain due to her family in Australia, the Tribunal gave substantial weight to Sleiman's strong ties to Lebanon, including his family and long-term employment, which provided an incentive for both applicants to return.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia and that the requirements of cl.600.211 were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration with a direction that the applicants meet the criterion in cl.600.211.