Tannous (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the refusal of a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, Subclass 408. The applicant sought to rely on the "Australian Government endorsed event – COVID-19 Pandemic" stream of the visa. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the specific criteria for this visa stream, particularly concerning an offer of employment.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied clause 408.219A of the relevant legislative instrument, LIN 22/046. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the employment offer was made at the time of the visa application, as required by subsection 4(b) of LIN 22/046, and whether the prospective employer, Aus Care Community Services Pty Ltd, qualified as a Commonwealth funded aged care service provider, rather than merely an approved NDIS provider. The applicant also raised concerns about his safety in Lebanon and requested consideration of Australia's protection obligations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant failed to satisfy essential requirements for the visa. The letter of offer from Aus Care Community Services Pty Ltd was undated and did not specify that the company provided aged care services or was Commonwealth funded for such services. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that being an approved NDIS provider did not equate to being a Commonwealth funded aged care service provider. The Tribunal also found that the employment offer did not appear to have been made at the time of the application, contrary to the requirements of LIN 22/046. While the applicant expressed fear of returning to Lebanon due to conflict and economic hardship, these claims were not directly relevant to the specific criteria for the Subclass 408 visa under the COVID-19 Pandemic event stream.

Consequently, as the applicant did not meet the essential requirements for the visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa.