Tahir (Migration) - [2023] AATA 4175

Tahir (Migration) [2023] AATA 4175 (7 December 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Ismael Abdulwahab Tahir
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Ashwin Tyagi (MARN: 1575846)
CASE NUMBER:  2204750
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2022/56058 BCC202256058

MEMBER:Simone Burford
DATE:7 December 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Resident Return (Class BB) visa.

Statement made on 07 December 2023 at 12:18pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) – adopted by an Australian relative – substantial cultural or personal ties to Australia – delayed notified of a visa cancellation – written Departmental advice against cancellation – lengthy residence in Australia with an adoptive mother – referral for Ministerial Intervention – participation in the community – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 45, 65, 140, 351
Migration Amendment Regulations 2002 (No 2), s 5(2)
Migration Amendment Regulation 2013
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 155.211, 155.212, 157.211, 157.212
CASES
Farah v MIAC [2011] FCA 185
Singh v MIBP (2018) 265 FCR 411
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 15 March 2022 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Return (Residence) (Class BB) Subclass 155 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 16 February 2022.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the visa.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal recommends the matter be referred for consideration of Ministerial intervention.
Background
The applicant is an Ethiopian national who was born in Dire Dama, Ethiopia in 1996.
The applicant’s biological father passed away in 2008. His mother’s whereabouts is unknown and he was raised by his father and grandmother. In 2010 he was adopted by his aunt, his father’s sister, Ms Kin Hashi who came to Australia in 1989 and is an Australian Citizen.
In 2009 Ms Hashi married to Mr Wendmagegn Weldermariam. On 25 September 2012 the applicant arrived in Australia as a dependant on Mr Weldermariam’s UF 309 visa. The sponsor for the visa was Ms Hashi.
On 6 August 2013 he was granted a Partner visa (permanent) Subclass 100 visa.
The applicant’s aunt and Mr Weldermariam separated sometime in 2014/2015 and on 29 April 2014 Mr Weldermariam’s visa was cancelled. On 13 March 2015 the applicant’s visa was cancelled by operation of law. He was not notified of this cancellation until 12 January 2022.
On 9 June 2020 the applicant applied for Australian citizenship. On 21 April 2021 he was invited to an interview with respect to his citizenship application for 10 June 2021.
On 12 January 2022 the applicant was notified by mail of his visa cancellation. On 20 January 2022 his application for citizenship was refused on the basis that he was an unlawful non-citizen.
On 16 February 2022 the applicant applied for the Resident Return visa while onshore. The applicant has not left Australia since arriving in 2012.
Review
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 December 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted via telephone.
The applicant was represented in relation to the application for the visa and the review. The applicant’s representative attended the hearing and made written and oral submissions.
The applicant provided the following documents in support of the application:
·            Statement dated 14 February 2022 (submitted with visa application);
·            Representative’s submissions dated 31 March 2022;
·Emails from the Department of Home Affairs to the applicant dated 21 January 2022;
·            Partner visa (Subclass 100) grant notice dated 6 August 2013;
·            Representative’s submissions dated 18 October 2023;
·            Copy of the applicant’s Ethiopian passport (bio page) issued 30 May 2022;
·            Statutory declaration from the applicant regarding loss of birth certificate;
·            Copy of the applicant’s Australian driver’s licence;
·            Copy of the applicant’s Medicare card;
·            Copy of the applicant’s Private Security licences;
·            Copy of Miss Kin’s Australian passport (bio page) issued 11 October 2017
·            Copy of Partner (Subclass 309) visa;
·            Copy of Partner (Subclass 100) visa;
·            Email from Department of Home Affairs dated 5 March 2015;
·            Email from Department of Home Affairs dated 6 March 2015;
·            Applicant’s High School graduation certificate;
·            Participation certificate for Yarra Soccer Pathways Program 2016;
·            Citizenship application form;
·            Citizenship interview appointment letter;
·            Email from Home Affairs Status Resolution Team dated 18 January 2022;
·Email from applicant to Home Affairs Status Resolution Team dated 19 January 2022;
·Email from Visa Cancellations dated 19 January 2022;
·Notification of visa cancellation dated 12 January 2022;
·Citizenship application refusal dated 20 January 2022;
·Application for review;
·Victoria University Certificate III in Non-Emergency Patient Transport;
·Melbourne Training College Certificate II in Security Operations;
·Australian Federal Police National Police Check;
·Representative’s submissions dated 22 November 2023;
·Applicant’s birth certificate;
·Enrolment confirmation Australian Catholic University;
·Letter of support, Christopher Mc Geachan, GR8M8S Foundation dated 19 October 2023;
·Medical certificate from Doctor Sunday Morakinyo, My Doctor Collingwood, dated 30 October 2023;
·Letter of support, Annabel Darbyshire, Yarra Youth Services dated 3 November 2023;
·Letter of support from Adam Bandt, MP dated 13 November 2023;
·Letter of support from Fitzroy Lions dated 8 November 2023;
·Letter of support from Victoria University;
·Letter of support from Foresite Training and Licensing dated 23 October 2023;
CRITERIA FOR THE VISA
A Resident Return visa cannot be granted unless the primary criteria specified in the Act and the Migration Regulations (Cth) (the Regulations) are satisfied. There are no secondary criteria for the visa.
The criteria for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa are set out in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa is for Australian permanent residents and certain former Australian citizens or former Australian permanent residents who are seeking to return to Australia after a period of absence. The purpose of the Return (Residence) visa is to facilitate the re-entry into Australia of non-citizen permanent residents, former permanent residents and former citizens and ensure that only those people who have a genuine commitment to residing in Australia, or who are contributing to Australia's well-being, retain the eligibility to return to Australia as permanent residents. There are two subclasses of Resident Return visas – Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) Subclass 157 (Three month Resident Return).
An applicant applies for a class of visa[1] and is entitled to be assessed against each subclass that is included in the class. When assessing an application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa, the applicant is usually first considered against the criteria for a Subclass 155 visa as the more advantageous visa. If the applicant is not eligible for that subclass, they must be considered against the criteria for a Subclass 157 visa.
[1] s 45.
For a Subclass 155 visa an applicant must meet the criteria in cl 155.21. Clause 155.211 Requires that the applicant is an Australian permanent resident, former Australian citizen or former Australian permanent resident (whose most recent permanent visa was not cancelled).
At time of application, an applicant for a Subclass 155 visa must also meet one of four alternative requirements set out in cl 155.212 (subclauses (2), (3), (3A) or (4)). These relate to:
· physical residence in Australia (subclause (2))
·substantial ties with Australia (subclause (3) for an applicant outside Australia and subclause (3A) for an applicant in Australia)
·being a member of a family unit of a Subclass 155 holder or someone who meets the requirements of cl 155.212 (subclass (4)).
The applicant will meet cl 155.212(2) if, at time of application, he or she was:
·lawfully present in Australia for a period of, or periods that total, not less than two years in the period of five years immediately before the application for the visa; and
·during that time, was the holder of a permanent visa or permanent entry permit or was an Australian citizen and was not the holder of a temporary visa (other than a kind specified and held concurrently with the permanent visa/entry permit), or of a bridging visa.[2]
Unlike some of the alternate criteria in cl 155.212, the applicant may be either in or outside Australia at time of application for this criteria.
[2] cl 155.212(2). For visa applications made on or after 1 July 2002, the applicant may be the holder of a Subclass 601 (Electronic Travel Authority) visa, a Subclass 773 Border visa, Subclass 956 Electronic Travel Authority (Business Entrant - Long Validity) visa, Subclass 976 Electronic Travel Authority (Visitor) visa or Subclass 977 Electronic Travel Authority (Business Entrant - Short Validity) visa held concurrently with the permanent visa or the permanent entry permit: Migration Amendment Regulations 2002 (No 2) (Cth) (SR 2002, No 86), s 5(2) and Migration Amendment Regulation 2013 (No 1) (Cth) (SLI 2013, No 32).
The alternate criteria in cls 155.212(3)- (3A) relate to applicants who don’t satisfy the physical presence criteria but have substantial ties with Australia. Under these criteria if an applicant does not meet the physical residence criteria, he or she may still satisfy cl 155.212 based on the nature of their ties to Australia. The requirements differ depending on whether the visa applicant is in or outside Australia at the time of application.
If the applicant is in Australia at the time of application, the decision maker must be satisfied that the applicant has substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia, and
·has not been absent from Australia for a continuous period of five years or more since:
othe date of grant of the applicant’s most recent permanent visa, unless there are compelling reasons for the absence, or
othe date on which the applicant ceased to be a citizen, unless there are compelling reasons for the absence.[3]
[3] cl 155.212(3A).
An applicant will alternatively meet cl 155.212 if they are a member of the family unit of a person who: has been granted a Subclass 155 visa and that visa is still in effect, or meets the requirements in cl 155.212(2), (3) or (3A) and has lodged a separate application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.[4]
[4] cl 155.212(4). For visa applications made prior to 1 July 2012, an applicant who is a member of the family unit of a person who meets cl 155.212(2), (3) or (3A) and has lodged either a combined or separate Class BB visa application may satisfy the requirements of cl 155.212(4)(b). Clause 155.212(4)(b) was amended by SLI 2012, No 106 such that for visa applications made on or after 1 July 2012, only an applicant who is a member of the family unit of a person who meets cl 155.212(2), (3) or (3A) and has made a separate Class BB visa application can meet cl 155.212(4)(b).
Subclass 157 visas are intended for permanent residents or former citizens who have less than two years’ physical residence in Australia and have not yet established substantial ties of benefit to Australia.[5]
[5] Policy - Migration Regulations - Schedules - Sch2 RRV - Resident return visas - BB 157 - Three Month Resident Return - About BB 157 - Purpose (re-issue date 18/4/2017).
For a Subclass 157 visa an applicant must meet the criteria in cl 157.21. Clause 157.211 is in the same terms as cl 155.211.
At time of application, an applicant for a Subclass 157 visa must also meet one of two alternate requirements in cl 157.212, subclauses (2) and (3).[6] The first requirement relates to physical presence in Australia and reasons for departure and the second to being a member of a family unit of a Subclass 157 visa holder.
[6] cl 157.212(1).
The requirements for physical presence in Australia for a Subclass 157 visa are less stringent than those for the Subclass 155 visa. The focus of the criterion is on the reasons for the applicant’s departure from Australia. To meet this alternate criterion (subclause (2)), the applicant must:
·be lawfully present in Australia for a period of, or periods that total, not less than one day but less than two years in the period of five years immediately before the application for the visa and during that time:
owas the holder of a permanent visa or a permanent entry permit or an Australian citizen; and
odid not hold a temporary visa (other than a kind specified concurrently with the permanent visa/permit), or a bridging visa;[7] and
·either:
ohave compelling and compassionate reasons for departing Australia, or
oif outside Australia, had compelling and compassionate reasons for his or her last departure from Australia.[8]
[7] cl 157.212(2)(a). For applications made on or after 1 July 2002, the applicant may be the holder of a Subclass 601 (Electronic Travel Authority) visa, a Subclass 773 Border visa, Subclass 956 Electronic Travel Authority (Business Entrant — Long Validity) visa, Subclass 976 Electronic Travel Authority (Visitor) visa or Subclass 977 Electronic Travel Authority (Business Entrant — Short Validity) visa held concurrently with the permanent visa or the permanent entry permit: SR 2002, No 86, and SLI 2013, No 32.
[8] cl 157.212(2)(b).
In the alternative (subclause (3)) they must be the member of the family unit of a person who has been granted a subclass 157 visa or meets the requirements of subclause (2) and has lodged an application for a Resident Return visa.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant satisfies clause 155.211 and 157.211.
CONSIDERATION
Applicant’s migration history
The applicant is an Ethiopian national who was born in Dire Dama, Ethiopia in 1996.
The applicant’s biological father passed away in 2008. His mother’s whereabouts is unknown and he was raised by his father and grandmother. In 2010 he was adopted by his aunt, his father’s sister, Ms Kin Hashi who came to Australia in 1989 and is an Australian Citizen.
In 2009 Ms Hashi married to Mr Wendmagegn Weldermariam in Ethiopia. On 25 September 2012 the applicant arrived in Australia as a dependant on Mr Weldermariam’s UF 309 visa. The sponsor for the visa was Ms Hashi. The applicant confirmed he has not left Australia since arriving in 2012.
On 6 August 2013 he was granted a Partner visa (permanent) Subclass 100 visa.
The applicant’s aunt and Mr Weldermariam separated sometime in 2014/2015 and on 29 April 2014 Mr Weldermariam’s visa was cancelled. As noted above, information before the Tribunal suggests that the applicant’s Partner visa (permanent) Subclass 100 visa was cancelled on 13 March 2015 under subsection 140(1) by operation of law however the applicant was not notified of this cancellation until 12 January 2022.
Material submitted by the applicant suggested that at the time of the cancellation of Mr Weldermariam’s visa, the applicant’s adoptive parent, Ms Hashi, engaged in correspondence with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. While it was initially suggested that the applicant’s visa would be consequentially cancelled as a result of cancellation of Mr Weldermariam’s visa, the Department later indicated in an email that the applicant’s visa would not be automatically cancelled and there would be no good reason for cancelling his visa. The email, from Mr Adam Kosack, Visa Cancellation Officer, Visa Cancellation Unit – NSW, Department of Immigration and Boarder Protection, dated 6 March 2015 provided:
I want to confirm our conversation on 6 March 2015 about the possible cancellation of [the applicant’s] visa.
During that conversation told you that your nephew/adopted so ,[ the applicant ], v now holds a Partner visa granted because Mr Weldemariam held a Partner Visa. If his visit was cancelled then [the applicant’s] visa would be cancelled automatically. This is so called consequential cancellation.
I told you that if [the applicant] was granted different then [the applicant’s] visa would not be cancelled result of cancelling Mr Weldemariam’s. I suggested that [the applicant] might want to apply for a Resident Return visa (RRV). I did not know if he would get it. If he was granted the RRV then it would not be cancelled automatically upon cancellation of Mr Weldemariam’s. I could however technically choose to cancel and RRV but given [the applicant’s] circumstances I said I could not see a good reason for doing that.
In summary, I suggested [the applicant] might apply for, and possibly get, and RRV as a way of avoiding cancellation.
When we spoke I was ignorant of the fact that [the applicant] had only been a permanent resident of Australia since August 2013. Generally there is a requirement that the person applying for an RRV has been a permanent resident for two years. [The applicant] hasn’t so I can’t see how he might be granted and RRV despite my early suggestion.
However, I have looked over the relevant law about consequential cancellation and discussed it with a colleague. I no longer believe that cancellation of Mr Weldemariam’s partner visa would bring about the automatic cancellation of [the applicant’s] partner visa.
In summary, if [the applicant] did apply for an RRV he might not get it. In any case I now believe that if Mr Weldemariam’s visa is cancelled then [the applicant’s] visa will not be cancelled.
The Tribunal considers on a fair reading that this correspondence from the Department indicated the applicant’s visa was not being cancelled. The applicant’s aunt relied on that email as indicating the applicant’s visa would not be consequentially cancelled. Subsequently the applicant also relied on that representation as a basis for believing he had lawful status as a permanent resident in Australia.
On 9 June 2020 the applicant applied for Australian citizenship. On 21 April 2021 he was invited to an interview with respect to his citizenship application. Due to COVID the interview was delayed but eventually occurred in December 2021. It appears from Departmental records that the Department was not aware, or had not institutionally recorded, that the applicant’s Partner visa had been cancelled by operation of law until records were examined in the context of his citizenship application. Records from December 2021 indicate the Department became aware the applicant’s visa had been consequentially cancelled in 2015 but that he had not been notified. This conclusion is supported by the fact the applicant was subsequently notified of the cancellation in January 2022.
On 12 January 2022 the applicant was notified by mail of his visa cancellation. On 20 January 2022 his application for Australian citizenship was refused on the basis that he was an unlawful non-citizen.
On 16 February 2022 the applicant applied for the Resident Return visa while onshore. The visa was refused on 15 March 2022. .
Analysis and findings

The applicant did not contend that he meets the criteria for a Resident Return visa.
As noted earlier, the criteria for the grant of this visa are set in schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. To be granted the visa, you have to meet the primary criteria. There are no secondary criteria.
Also as noted earlier, the applicant is entitled to be assessed against each subclass that is included in the class applied for. When assessing an application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa, the applicant is usually first considered against the criteria for a Subclass 155 visa as the more advantageous visa. If the applicant is not eligible for that subclass, they must be considered against the criteria for a Subclass 157 visa.
For a Subclass 155 visa an applicant must meet the criteria in cl 155.21. Clause 155.211 requires that the applicant is an Australian permanent resident, former Australian citizen or former Australian permanent resident (whose most recent permanent visa was not cancelled).
The Tribunal finds the applicant held a permanent Partner visa (Subclass 100) visa granted on 6 August 2013. However, this visa was cancelled under s 140(1) by operation of law on 13 March 2015. The applicant was notified of that cancellation by letter dated 12 January 2022.
As explained to the applicant at the hearing, consequential cancellations by operation of law do not involve a ‘decision’ as such. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of these cancellations.[9]
[9] See Farah v MIAC [2011] FCA 185 at [2]; Singh v MIBP (2018) 265 FCR 411 at [50].
There is no information before the Tribunal that the cancellation of the primary visa applicant’s visa was set aside or revoked. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s most recently held permanent visa was cancelled on 13 March 2015.
As the applicant’s most recent and only permanent visa was cancelled he does not satisfy cl 155.211. As he does not meet cl 155.211 he does not meet the primary criteria for a subclass 155 visa.
For a Subclass 157 visa an applicant must meet the criteria in cl 157.21. Clause 157.211 is in the same terms as cl 155.211. As the applicant’s most recent and only permanent visa was cancelled he does not satisfy cl 157.211. Again, as he does not meet cl 157.211 he does not meet the primary criteria for a subclass 157 visa.
As cls 155.21 and 157.21 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations are not met by the applicant, The Tribunal finds he does not meet the criteria for a Resident Return (class BB) visa (subclass 155 or 157).
Referral to the Minister
The applicant has requested that the Tribunal refer the case to the Department for consideration by the Minister pursuant to s.351 of the Act which gives the Minister a discretion to substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision that is more favourable to the applicant, if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.
It was submitted that the applicant’s circumstances were extraordinary. It was submitted that the applicant had been in Australia since he was a minor and had built a life here with his adoptive mother who was the only remaining parental figure in his life. He did so on the understanding he was a permanent resident, an understanding created by representations from the Department which, when it realised its error, had done nothing to explain or ameliorate his circumstances. The details of those representations were provided earlier in this decision.
The Tribunal considers the applicant relied on information from the Department suggesting his visa had not been cancelled to his detriment. It is not clear what options may have been available at the time had he known his visa had been cancelled however it is clear that he has been significantly disadvantaged by the significant time it took for the Department to notify him of the cancellation, by which point he had been unlawful for a significant number of years. The Tribunal considers it is evidence that during that period the applicant made significant ties to Australia, engaging in work, study and cultural activities.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a range of supporting statements and letters attesting to the contributions he has made while in Australia. A letter from Ms Darbyshire, team leader at Gary youth services at the City of Yarra, indicates he accessed programs and activities over a nine-year period. The letter notes he is ‘respectful, kind and incredibly self-motivated to make positive life for himself and his auntie in Australia.’ The letter notes that he is a well-respected member of the Yarra community and the Ethiopian community.
The applicant also provided a letter of support from his local MP Mr Adam Bandt, noting the impact of the cancellation on the applicant. In addition, he provided a letter from the Fitzroy Lions Football Club noting his strong connection to the club and in particular his commitment to inclusivity. The letter notes that the applicant coaches and supports a significant portion of the club’s players, many of whom come from public and social housing in Fitzroy, Collingwood and Richmond and supporting members of the African community in their participation in the club, including supporting subsidised participation of other members of the community.
The applicant provided a letter from the President of GR8M8S Foundation, Mr McGeachen, indicating the applicant had been associated with the foundation for 11 years as a participant and over the last four years as a paid coach of the Inner-City Yarra Sporting Programs Community. The letter notes the applicant’s excellent leadership skills and that he is a ‘brilliant community connector’.
The applicant indicates he is committed to continuing study to enter the emergency healthcare field, having been inspired to do so by the circumstances of his father’s death in Ethiopia where emergency healthcare was not available. He provided a letter from Victoria University Polytechnic indicating that he had been started studying to become a paramedic but had been unable to continue to study. The letter indicates the applicant has expressed an intention to return to study once he is financially able. The applicant provided evidence of other studies undertaken to facilitate employment including certificates in construction and plant operations. The Tribunal does not doubt the applicant’s commitment to working in the emergency services field and considers this commitment to contributing to the health sector to be to his credit.
The Tribunal also accepts on the material before it that the applicant and his aunt have suffered significant emotional hardship and psychological strain from the unexpected discovery that he did not hold a visa. In the Tribunal’s view the Department’s conduct in notifying him of the cancellation without outreach or explanation exacerbated that difficulty. It is unfortunate given the history of the matter that more was not done to assist the applicant in that regard. The applicant’s aunt spoke to her reliance on him as her only immediate family member in Australia and of her distress at having relied on the information she was given in 2015. Understandably she feels powerless to help her nephew and adopted son.
The applicant spoke to the financial and emotional burden caused by his loss of visa status and the processes required to obtain a visa. This has caused him to defer university studies though he hoped to resume those at some stage if his permanent visa status can be restored. A letter from his treating doctor indicated that he has been diagnosed with ‘major depression’ as a result of the decision to cancel his visa. The letter is brief in its detail and indicates that the applicant is suffering from mental health issues as a result of his visa uncertainty.
The applicant is not the architect of his misfortune. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest he has conducted himself other than would be expected of a young permanent resident establishing themselves in Australia and making a life for themselves here. He has worked, studied and engaged with his local and cultural communities in a manner which speaks highly of his commitment to Australia. His letters of support speak highly of his personal qualities and the catastrophic impact his visa status has had on him. Through no fault of his own, and it would appear in large part due to oversight or error on the part of the Department, he has been left with few options other than separation from his only parental figure and return to a country he left over ten years ago as a young teen and where he has little if any family support.
The Tribunal considers on the information before it that the applicant relied on information from the Department to his detriment. He has established himself in Australia and has close family, educational and cultural ties here. Although he came as a young teenager he has few remaining ties to the county of his birth.
It is not clear on the information before the Tribunal whether the applicant has exhausted the visa pathways which may be available to him, however given his circumstances it seems likely that his visa options onshore would be limited. Further, given the amount of time he has been in Australia and the lack of support he has outside the country, external visas options are unlikely to be a realistic option.
Given the applicant’s circumstances and the history of his visa cancellation, the Tribunal considers there are significant compassionate circumstances in the applicant’s case and that the matter should be referred to the Department for consideration of Ministerial intervention.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s case and the Ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) and will refer the matter to the Department for consideration for Ministerial Intervention. Further documents and submissions addressing this matter should be directed to the Department.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Resident Return (Class BB) visa.
Simone Burford
Senior Member