[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Migration Review Tribunal of Australia

You are here: 

1114105 [2012] MRTA  1676  (13 June 2012)

Last Updated: 25 June 2012

1114105  [2012] MRTA 1676  (13 June 2012)

DECISION RECORD

REVIEW APPLICANT: Mrs Hayat Daggecen

VISA APPLICANT: Mrs Sunay Sarikaya

MRT CASE NUMBER: 1114105

DIAC REFERENCE(S): CLF2006/78904 CLF2011/222704

TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Deborah Jordan

DATE: 13 June 2012

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application for a Sponsored (Visitor) (Class UL) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 679 (Sponsored Family Visitor) visa:

• cl.679.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
  

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Sponsored (Visitor) (Class UL) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The visa applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a Sponsored (Visitor) (Class UL) visa on 21 November 2011. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 2 December 2011 and notified the visa applicant of the decision and her review rights by letter dated 2 December 2011.
3. The delegate refused the visa application on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.679.224 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant’s expressed intention to only visit Australia is genuine.
4. The review applicant applied to the Tribunal on 21 December 2011 for review of the delegate’s decision.
5. The Tribunal finds that the delegate’s decision is an MRT-reviewable decision under the Act. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant has made a valid application for review under s.347 of the Act.

RELEVANT LAW

6. The Sponsored (Visitor) (Class UL) visa contains the Subclass 679 (Sponsored Family Visitor) visa and the Subclass 459 (Sponsored Business Visitor) (Short stay) visa: item 1217A of Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The visa applicant has made an application only in respect of the Subclass 679 visa.
7. The Subclass 679 visa is for people seeking to enter Australia for the purposes of visiting an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident who is a parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister of the visa applicant, or for a purpose other than a purpose related to business or medical treatment. This visa subclass allows a relative (as defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations) or another permitted party (as specified in cl.679.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations), to sponsor the visa applicant. The criteria for a Subclass 679 visa are set out in Part 679 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
8. Relevantly to this matter, a primary criterion to be met at the time of decision is that the visa applicant satisfies the Minister that the expressed intention of the visa applicant only to visit is genuine: cl.679.224.

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the visa applicant.
10. The applicant was born on 1 December 1965 in Mersin, Turkey and currently resides in Mersin. She applied for a sponsored visitor visa for a period of 3 months, to visit her daughter and provide her with support and assistance prior to and after the birth of her 3rd child, whose birth was due on 17 January 2012.
11. The visa applicant provided the Department with a copy of her daughter’s certificate of Australian citizenship.
12. According to the visa application form, the visa applicant’s parents and three brothers are deceased and she has one married sister living in Mersin. The visa applicant’s daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren (now three grandchildren) live in Australia.
13. The visa applicant states that she has worked at Tanis Insaat, in Mersin, for 1 year and 11 months and is a supervisor there. She states that her daughter and her son-in-law will provide her with meals, accommodation and financial expenses during her proposed visit and will also pay for her return airfare.
14. As noted in the delegate’s decision, at question 34 on the application form, the applicant indicated that she has never been refused a visa for Australia or another country. At question 40 on the form, she indicated that she has never had an application for entry to or further stay in Australia refused, or had a visa for Australia cancelled. At question 42 on the form (“Complete the following details if you have applied for temporary entry to Australia in the last 5 years”) she wrote “N/A” She indicated that her migration agent assisted her in completing the application form. She signed the declaration on the form which states, in part:
    • In any part of this form which has been completed with the assistance of another person, I declare that the information as set down is true and correct and has been included with my full knowledge, consent and understanding.
    • I have truthfully declared all relevant details requested of me in this application.
15. On the family composition form (Form 54), the visa applicant states that:
    1. her husband, parents and three brothers are deceased;
    2. she has one married sister, Sidika, who lives in Mersin;
    100. she has two adult children living in Turkey: Begum, born in 1984, who is single and lives with her in Mersin and Burcu, born in 1985, who is married and lives in Ankara; and
    4. she has one daughter (the review applicant) who lives in Australia.
16. The review applicant signed a statutory declaration on 17 November 2011, which provides the following relevant information:
    1. She and her husband will provide the visa applicant’s return airfare, food, accommodation and financial expenses while she is in Australia;
    2. They are financially secure. Her husband is employed full-time;
    100. Her mother is a genuine visitor and has no intention of remaining in Australia after her proposed visit. The visa applicant is employed full-time and receives a widow’s pension. She owns her apartment and two other rental properties (a shop and an apartment) in Mersin. She therefore has employment, household and property commitments to return to in Turkey.
17. The sponsor provided the Department with copies of her bank statement and evidence of her husband’s employment and salary as evidence of her ability to financially support her mother during her proposed visit.
18. The visa applicant provided the Department with:
    1. evidence of property ownership in Turkey;
    2. a letter from her employer confirming that the visa applicant has worked there since 1 December 2010;
    100. evidence that, from 15 October 1992, she was eligible for a widow’s pension; and
    4. evidence that the sponsor is her daughter.
19. On 2 December 2011, the Department notified the visa applicant, in writing, of its decision to refuse to grant the visa. The decision states, in part:
    1. The applicant has one sibling in Turkey and one daughter and grandchildren in Australia and the delegate considers her family ties to Turkey to be outweighed by her family ties to Australia.
    2. Departmental records indicate that the applicant was refused:
       1. a tourist visa subclass 676 on 10 April 2007;
       2. a skilled migration visa subclass BQ130 on 5 September 2007;
       3. a sponsored family visitor visa on 12 February 2007.
    100. The applicant did not disclose information about any of the refused visas, which raises serious concerns about her intention to return to Turkey within the validity of her proposed visa.
    4. The applicant’s immigration history (the BQ139 application) indicates that she intended to permanently reside in Australia.
20. The applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 21 December 2011. She is represented in regard to the review by a migration agent. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the Department’s decision and reasons.
21. The case was constituted to the presiding member on 14 March 2012 and on 21 March 2012, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing listed for 3 May 2012.

Hearing

22. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 May 2012 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Turkish and English languages.
23. The review applicant told the Tribunal that:
    1. Her father died when she was nine years old. She has two sisters living in Turkey: Begum, who currently lives with the visa applicant and is about to be married, and Burcu, who has a one year old son and lives in Ankara.
    2. The visa applicant has two sisters and one brother who live in Turkey. She also has nieces and nephews in Turkey. The visa applicant is in regular contact with her brother, who lives in the same building as the visa applicant and with one sister who lives nearby. The other sister lives further away but they speak on the telephone regularly. When the Tribunal noted that only one sister is listed on the visa application form, the review applicant explained that the brother and one sister are step-siblings because the visa applicant’s mother married twice.
    100. The visa applicant works for two different employers, making costumes and supervising other workers. The visa applicant also receives a pension.
    4. The visa applicant has spoken to her employers who have told her that she can take 3 months leave to travel.
    5. The visa applicant does not own a car, but probably has a bank account. She has properties which were not included on the visa application form, because she did not realise that they should all be included. She said she told her mother to include one shop and one apartment.
    6. Her mother earns rental income from some of her properties. The review applicant was a little vague about how many properties her mother owns and when they were acquired but indicated that she would be able to provide documentary evidence at a later date.
24. The Tribunal noted that the Department’s decision refers to the fact that the visa applicant did not disclose three previous visa refusals when she applied for this visa. The review applicant said she was not aware that there were questions on the application form about previous refusals.
25. The review applicant told the Tribunal that the first visitor visa was refused in 2007 because the visa applicant had already applied for a skilled visa. The application for the skilled visa included both of the visa applicant’s daughters. When the application was lodged, her mother and her sisters all intended to come to live in Australia.
26. The review applicant told the Tribunal that, when the skilled visa application was lodged, her mother was working for a company that was paying her cash and not paying her superannuation and the employer, who did not want to be in trouble over that, denied that her mother worked there. The applicant explained that the skilled visa was therefore refused.
27. The review applicant said both of her sisters were studying in Australia in 2009 when her mother applied for a visitor visa again. The review applicant said that visa was refused because of the skilled visa application and because the delegate said her mother was still young and might marry in Australia.
28. The review applicant told the Tribunal that:
    1. Both of her sisters came to Australia to study but they returned to Turkey because they missed their mother.
    2. When the visa applicant lodged the skilled visa application, which included both of her daughters, it had been her intention to live in Australia. Now that two of her daughters have decided to remain in Turkey, the visa applicant no longer wishes to live in Australia. She will comply with her visa conditions if she is granted a visitor visa.
    100. The visa applicant has never travelled outside Turkey. She last saw her mother in 2011 when she went to Turkey for 5 weeks. Her mother has not met the baby.
    4. The review applicant’s husband works shift work and is not always available to help with the couple’s three children. The review applicant would like her mother to come to Australia to help her with the children. Three months will give the review applicant a rest.
29. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that:
    1. When she applied for a skilled visa, her intention was to live in Australia with all three of her daughters. Now, two of her daughters are settled in Turkey. One is married and the other will marry later this year, so the visa applicant no longer wishes to live in Australia.
    2. She has a 13 month old grandson who lives in Ankara with his mother. She speaks to this daughter and to her grandson on the telephone every day. She sees them about every 2 months, when they visit each other.
    100. Her father had four children from his first marriage. Three are deceased and one sister is still alive. Her mother had a daughter and a son from another marriage. She therefore has three living step-siblings. When her father and mother married, they had only one child: the visa applicant.
30. The Tribunal asked the visa applicant why she only mentioned one sister on the visa application form. She said this sister is considered to be her “real sister” because they have the same father.
31. She said she sees her “older brother” regularly because he lives in the same building as her. She said one “sister” lives nearby and the other lives further away. She said they all celebrate family occasions together.
32. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicant did not provide details for her children who would not be travelling with her. She confirmed that they will not be travelling with her.
33. The Tribunal further noted that the visa application does not mention the 3 previous visas which were refused. She asked the Tribunal if she was supposed to mention them. She said she thought her daughter would tell the Department “those things”.
34. She said she took the visa application to an interpreting agency to translate it for her before she signed the declaration. The Tribunal remarked that, if that was the case, she should have realised that some of the questions were not answered correctly.
35. The visa applicant said:
    1. She owns three shops: one bought more than 10 years ago, one in 1992 and the third, about 5 months ago, after the visa application was lodged. She also owns land which she acquired 12 or 15 years ago.
    2. She owns three flats. She lives in one and earns rental income from the other two. She does not have the title for one of the flats because it is in a housing co-operative.
    100. She can provide documentary evidence for her assets, including a bank statement.
    4. She earns TRY1,000 per month from her work and receives a pension for the same amount (the Tribunal notes that, on the date of this decision, TRY1,000 is about AUD550).
    5. The flats are rented for TRY700 per month, but one is currently empty. She receives rental income totalling TRY14,000 p.a. (about AUD7,700) from the three shops.
    6. She is employed making costumes. Her employer is also her friend. She has worked for him for three years. She has leave approved so that she can travel. She worked for him before but he only started paying her superannuation after 1 December 2010, so that is why her employer’s letter states that as the date she commenced employment there. She also works for another employer.
    7. She wants to visit Australia to see where her daughter and her family live, to meet her new grandchild and to see Australia.
    8. She knows that she has to comply with the conditions of her visa. She has no intention of remaining in Australia. Things were different when she lodged the skilled visa application. She just wants to spend some quiet, quality time with her daughter and her family in Australia.
36. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicant said she took the visa application form to be interpreted for her before she signed it. The Tribunal noted that, if that was the case, her mother should have realised that there were questions on the form about previous visa refusals, which had not been answered correctly. The Tribunal asked the review applicant if she wanted to comment about this issue. The review applicant said her mother may be confusing the visa application with other documents she had translated. She also said her mother may have only had the declaration translated, rather than the whole application form.
37. The agent indicated that the omitted information was an oversight in his office.
38. The Tribunal asked the review applicant to provide additional documentary evidence of her mother’s employment and leave situation, her income from all sources and her assets.

After the hearing

39. In a submission dated 30 May 2012, the applicant provided documents which indicate that, in addition to the assets mentioned earlier in this decision, the applicant also owns two shops, land described as an olive grove and an apartment. She provided rental contracts for two shops (totalling TRY4,200 per month) and the apartment (TRY700 per month).
40. The applicant also provided:
    1. The visa applicant’s bank statement, which, amongst other transactions, shows pension credits of approximately TRY600 and a closing balance, on 7 May 2012 of TRY1,223.
    2. A receipt for a term deposit of TRY30,000 deposited on 27 December 2011 and maturing on 3 February 2012.
    100. An undated letter from her employer, Tanis Insaat, which states that the visa applicant has been employed by that business since 1 December 2010 and will take paid leave for 3 months and resume her job upon her return to Turkey.
    4. A payslip from Tanis Insaat, for the month of April 2012, showing a net wage of TRY701.
    5. An undated letter, signed by Ismail Kurt, which states that the visa applicant is employed in his business, Ceren Kostum, for a monthly wage of TRY1000 and that the writer has no objection to her taking paid leave for 3 months between 1 July 2012 and 30 September 2012. The Tribunal notes that Ismail Kurt is named on a rental contract as the lessor of the visa applicant’s apartment, for TRY700 per month.
    6. A statutory declaration, signed by the review applicant on 31 May 2012. She states that she sent the signature pages of the form 48S, 54 and 956 to the visa applicant for her to sign and return. It was an honest oversight that questions 34, 40 and 42 of the form 48S were answered incorrectly. She and her mother had no intention of misleading the Department and are aware that the Department has access to all of the visa applicant’s previous applications. When the review applicant checked the forms before lodging them, she was pregnant and under a lot of stress and therefore was not concentrating properly.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

41. As noted above, the issue in this matter is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant’s intention to only visit Australia is genuine as required by cl.679.224.
42. The Departmental guidelines in PAM3 set out various matters that may be considered in assessing the genuineness of an applicant’s intention to visit. In particular, at paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3 the policy guidelines provide as follows:

8.1 The genuine visitor requirements

Under policy ‘visit’ refers to both the nature and duration of the proposed visit. In making this decision, officers should consider whether the applicant is attempting to obtain the visa to:

• remain in Australia for a longer period (for example, maintain ongoing residence in Australia on “rolling” visitor visas) or

• utilise the visa for unlawful purposes (for example, to work illegally).

8.2 Assessing whether the applicant meets the genuine visitor requirement

In establishing whether this criterion is satisfied, relevant considerations may include, but are not limited to:

• personal circumstances that may encourage the applicant to leave Australia at the end of the proposed visit

• the applicant’s immigration history (for example, previous travel, compliance with immigration laws of Australia or other countries, previous visa applications/compliance action)

• personal circumstances in the applicant’s home country that may encourage them to remain in Australia (for example, military service commitments, economic situation, civil disruption)

• conditions that may encourage the applicant to remain in Australia

• the credibility of the applicant in terms of character and conduct (for example, false and misleading information provided with visa application)

• whether the purpose and proposed duration of the applicant’s visit, and proposed activities in Australia are reasonable and consistent (for example, period of stay consistent with tourism)

• information contained in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance developed by the department about nationals from the applicant’s home country. Such information developed as profiles may assist assessing officers in determining whether closer examination of an application is required to ensure the integrity of the visitor visa program.

Personal circumstances that may encourage the applicant to return to his or her home country (home country being country of usual residence), include:

• on-going employment

• the presence of immediate family members in their home country, that is, does the applicant have more close family members living in their home country than in Australia

• property, or other significant assets, owned in their home country

• the applicant’s economic situation - including unemployment or employment that, based on knowledge of local employment conditions, such as salary rates, would not constitute a strong incentive for the applicant to leave Australia and

• currently residing in a country whose nationals represent a low risk of immigration non-compliance, even though the applicant is originally from a country whose nationals represent a statistically higher risk of non-compliance.

Consideration of the applicant’s immigration history, may include but is not limited to:

• previous travels to Australia (that is, has the applicant previously travelled to Australia? did they comply with the conditions of their visa? if not were the circumstances beyond their control? did they depart prior to the expiry of their visa?)

• previous visa applications for Australia (that is, has the applicant previously applied for a permanent Australian visa?) and

• previous travels overseas (that is, has the applicant travelled to countries other than Australia? has the applicant previously travelled to a country where there would be significant incentives for them to remain and complied with the immigration laws of that country?). Officers may give weight to applicants who had travelled to and complied with the immigration laws of country(ies) that have significant incentives for the applicant to remain in that country(ies), either for economic or personal reasons, when assessing this factor. However, officers may have to use judicious discretion where there is a lack of travel history.

Conditions that may encourage the applicant to remain in Australia, include:

• the applicant’s personal ties to Australia, that is, does the applicant have more close family members living in Australia than in their home country, is the applicant subject of adoption proceedings that have not been resolved in their home country

• military service commitments

• civil disruption, including war, lawlessness or political upheaval in the applicant’s home country and

• economic disruption, including shortages, famine, or high levels of unemployment, or natural disasters in the applicant’s home country.

Where consideration of the factors above raise doubts about the applicant’s ability to meet the genuine visitor criterion, such as where the applicant’s circumstances may suggest the need for greater scrutiny, officers may consider/request additional evidence to demonstrate that the applicant intends a genuine visit.

Officers may request further evidence from the applicant where considered appropriate, if departmental statistical or intelligence reports on migration fraud, or profiles based on such reports, indicate that there is a significantly greater likelihood of nationals from the applicant’s home country:

• staying in Australia beyond the expiry of their visa

• having their visa cancelled

• being refused entry to Australia or

• lodging protection visa (PV) applications.

Officers should, however, be aware that applicants matching the characteristics of a profile is not grounds to refuse to grant a visa. Profiles are merely an alert that closer scrutiny of the applicant’s circumstances may be required. All applications must be considered on their own merits taking into account all the information and supporting documentation provided by the applicant.

Additional evidence that officers may wish to consider to determine whether or not the applicant is a genuine visitor include:

• evidence that the applicant has been employed for at least the previous 12 months, has approved leave for the period of stay sought and will continue to be employed on their return home OR

• if self-employed, evidence they have owned their own business for the previous 12 months OR

• if retired/non-working have other financial commitments and/or family/social ties that would provide sufficient inducement for them to return to their home country at the end of their visit OR

• good immigration history.

Generally, offers of support or guarantees given by family and friends in Australia are not sufficient evidence of a genuine visit. The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the decision maker that they intend to only visit Australia.

Guarantees from connections in Australia, can however be critical in assessing whether an applicant has or has access to adequate funds.

8.3 Taking a fair and reasonable approach

Decision-makers are encouraged to take a fair and reasonable approach to the genuine visitor requirement, particularly where the applicant is involved in a partner relationship with an Australian citizen or permanent resident and/or there are children involved - see section 45 Visitor visa applications lodged by someone in a relationship with an Australian for further information.

The focus should be on the current intentions of the applicant. Consequently, if the decision maker is satisfied that the applicant intends to depart Australia within the authorised period of stay, but there may be a suggestion that they may later attempt to seek permanent residence and/or return to Australia, the genuine visitor requirement may be satisfied.

In cases where the period of stay requested raises concerns about an applicant’s ability to meet the genuine visitor requirement, case officers should consider whether a shorter period of stay would enable them to be satisfied that the visa criteria are met.

43. As noted by the Court in Durzi v MIMIA [2006] FCA 1767, when considering the role of PAM3 in relation to the interpretation of a different provision (namely, r.1.15A):

PAM3 is simply a document which brings a number of relevant facts to the attention of the decision maker to which the decision maker may or may not have regard in considering whether an applicant has brought himself or herself within the criteria required in reg 1.15. It has no legislative effect. It does not construe reg 1.15. A decision maker is not bound to have regard to it or if a decision maker has regard to it the decision maker commits no error (at [49]).

44. The Tribunal is of the view that the policy set out above is relevant unless it is inconsistent with legislation, or there are compelling reasons why they should not be considered. In this case there is no such inconsistency or compelling reasons.
45. Accordingly, having regard to the criteria set out in the legislation and the considerations set out in the policy guidelines, the issues are discussed under the following headings:

The personal circumstances that may encourage the visa applicant to return to their home country. Circumstances which may encourage the visa applicant to remain in Australia.

46. The visa applicant is a widow with two daughters and a young grandson in Turkey. She also has 3 half-siblings living in Turkey, with whom she is in frequent contact.
47. She provided evidence which indicates that she works for two employers and that she has officially been “on the books” of one of them since December 2010.
48. She has provided evidence of ownership of several properties (land, shops and apartments) and of the rental income she obtains from some of those properties.
49. She also provided evidence that she receives a monthly pension and evidence of funds held in the bank.
50. She has one daughter and three grandchildren in Australia.

The visa applicant’s immigration history. The credibility of the visa applicant in terms of character and conduct.

51. The visa applicant has never travelled outside Turkey.
52. She has previously been refused the following Australian visas:
    1. a tourist visa subclass 676 on 10 April 2007;
    2. a skilled migration visa subclass BQ130 on 5 September 2007; and
    100. a sponsored family visitor visa on 12 February 2009.
53. She did not disclose these visa refusals on her most recent visitor visa application and this caused the Tribunal to have concerns about her credibility.
54. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the non-disclosure of the refused visas and on the visa applicant’s declaration that the form was correct in every particular. The applicant provided a statutory declaration to the effect that the non-disclosure was an oversight, that she did not purposely mislead the Department and that she was aware that the Department had access to her mother’s previous visa applications. The applicant also states that she did not send her mother the entire visa application but only the pages for her mother’s signature.
55. The Tribunal accepts that the provision of the incorrect information was an oversight by the review applicant and that the visa applicant was not aware of this, because she did not have the complete form before her when she signed the declaration.
56. While the Tribunal does not condone the signing of the declaration when she did not have the complete form in her possession, the Tribunal accepts that it is the reason for the provision of the incorrect information.

The purpose of the visa applicant’s visit, the duration of stay proposed and any other plans which the visa applicant has made for the visit are consistent with tourism and/or visiting friends and relatives. That the period of stay is consistent with the period of the visa applicant’s approved leave (if applicable).

57. The visa applicant applied for a visa for 3 months to visit her daughter prior to and after the birth of her third child. The child was born in January 2012 and the visa applicant has not met the child.
58. The proposed duration of stay is consistent with visiting relatives. She provided letters from both of her employers to show that she has leave approved for her proposed travel.

Information contained in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance developed by the Department about nationals from the applicant’s home country.

59. There is no specific adverse information before the Tribunal regarding the immigration activities in Australia of other Turkish nationals that might undermine the integrity of the visitors’ visa program.
60. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the visa applicant and the review applicant to the effect that the visa applicant’s circumstances have changed since she lodged the skilled visa application and that she no longer wishes to remain permanently in Australia.
61. The applicant has more family in Turkey than she does in Australia. She has three half-siblings there and two daughters, one of whom is married with a child and the other who is about to be married. She owns several assets in Turkey which provide her with an income. In addition, she works and receives a pension and has funds in the bank. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant has more incentive to return to Turkey than to remain in Australia at the expiry of her visa.
62. After considering all of the evidence and for the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant’s intention only to visit Australia is genuine and finds that the visa applicant satisfies the requirements of cl.679.224.

CONCLUSIONS

63. For the reasons given above the Tribunal finds the visa applicant satisfies the requirements of cl.679.224.

DECISION

64. The Tribunal remits the application for a Sponsored (Visitor) (Class UL) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 679 (Sponsored Family Visitor) visa:
    • cl.679.224 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
      

Deborah Jordan
Member