Immigration Lawyer Insights - When a Visitor visa application is refused due to economic conditions in your home country
Are you interested in applying for a Visitor visa to travel to Australia?
Are you wondering about the likelihood of your Visitor visa application being granted?
According to the Department of Home Affairs’ Visitor Visa Program Report of 30 June 2024, the overall grant rate for all Visitor visas to Australia (including Tourist and Business Visitor streams) was 88.2% for the April 2024 to June 2024 quarter, compared to 86.7% for the corresponding 2022-23 quarter.
While this would prima facie suggest that most Visitor visa applications are generally granted by the Department of Home Affairs, the truth is that is that the grant rate of Visitor visa applications varies across different cohorts of applicants, including which stream they apply in, their country of origin, economic conditions in the applicant’s home country and individual circumstances of each case.
In particular, it is common knowledge that it can be difficult for applicants from certain countries to be granted a Visitor visa, due to difficulties with satisfying the Department of Home Affairs that they are genuine temporary entrants to Australia.
What does it mean to be a Genuine Temporary Entrant?
In assessing applications for the grant of a Visitor visa to Australia, the Department of Home Affairs will consider an applicant’s satisfaction of the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement (amongst other legislative and regulatory requirements).
The purpose of the GTE requirement is to ensure that only people intending to stay in Australia temporarily (such as for tourism, business activity and/or family visit purposes), and who will return to their home country before their visa expires are granted Visitor visas.
When assessing whether a Visitor visa applicant is a Genuine Temporary Entrant, the Department will consider the applicant’s personal circumstances, including whether -
the applicant has strong incentives to return to their home country at the end of their visit;
the purpose of the applicant’s visit to Australia;
the applicant’s financial capacity; and
the applicant’s immigration history.
It is not uncommon for applicants from countries experiencing economic instability, high unemployment rates, or political unrest to face further scrutiny under the GTE requirement, since these are factors which may contribute to a finding that an applicant has diminished incentive to return to their home country and is unlikely to be a Genuine Temporary Entrant to Australia.
What happens if your Visitor visa application is refused on GTE grounds?
As most Visitor visa applications are lodged by persons who are outside of Australia, persons who are refused an offshore Visitor visa application may not be able to apply for merits review to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), except where they have applied for a Visitor visa to visit a close family member in Australia.
Where an offshore applicant applied for a Visitor visa to visit an an Australian citizen, or an Australian permanent resident, who is a parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister, and that Visitor visa application has been refused, their close family member may be able to apply to the ART for merits review of the application.
The ART will then conduct a de novo assessment of the applicant’s eligibility for a Visitor visa, which means that the Tribunal will consider the application afresh and may make different findings to the Department of Home Affairs, potentially in the applicant’s favour.
Charaf v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 350
An example of where a Visitor visa applicant’s close family member applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for merits review of the refusal of the Visitor visa application is the case of Charaf v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 350.
Visa application stage
In this case, the applicant, Mr Sabbouh applied for a Visitor (Subclass 600) visa on 16 May 2018, in the Sponsored Family stream, to visit his mother and sister who reside in Australia.
On 6 June 2018, Mr Sabbouh’s Visitor visa application was refused by the Department, due to concerns that his employment as a full-time home painter in his home country, Lebanon, did not provide a strong enough incentive for him to return to Lebanon. The Department accepted that Mr Sabbouh had family ties in Lebanon, being his parents and siblings classed as non-dependent relatives, which may offer some incentive to return home, but also noted the state of civil unrest in Lebanon due to the war in Syria, finding that the circumstances in North Lebanon may encourage the visa applicant to remain in Australia after the expiry of his visa.
Merits review stage
Mr Sabbouh’s mother, Ms Waffa Charaf subsequently applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as the ART was then known) for review.
During the hearing of Ms Charaf’s review application, she gave evidence that Mr Sabbouh was only coming to Australia to visit his mother and sister, that he lived in Northern Lebanon, and that she could provide a bond of up to AUD15,000 for the grant of Mr Sabbouh’s Visitor visa. Ms Charaf further stated that her other children had visited Australia, and that they had not breached their visas.
The AAT put country information to Ms Charaf for comment, as reasons that Mr Sabbouh would remain in Australia, including:
Lebanon being on the verge of economic collapse even before the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and
the largest non-nuclear explosion recorded in Beirut, Lebanon in August 2020.
In response, Mr Sabbouh’s sister stated that he would not work in Australia, and that he would return to Lebanon on account of his employment. Whilst Mr Sabbouh had ties to Lebanon, such as property and family that would incentivise him to return to Lebanon, he also had personal ties to Australia through his mother and sister, and the AAT considered that the conditions in Lebanon were significant to push the visa applicant to seek to work and/or remain in Australia, even if Ms Charaf’s intention was for Mr Sabbouh to return to Lebanon, and even if a bond were imposed.
Unfortunately, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the refusal of Mr Sabbouh’s Visitor visa application on 15 October 2020, and Ms Waffa thereafter applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on 29 October 2020 for judicial review of the AAT’s decision.
Judicial review stage
Before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Ms Charaf argued that:
there was no information before the Tribunal that the visa applicant was enduring financial hardship of any sort;
Ms Charaf would be prevented from sponsoring any other visits for five years in the event that the Mr Sabbouh breached his visa conditions;
Ms Charaf had provided the AAT with information that her health condition precluded her from travelling to Lebanon and Mr Sabbouh visiting his mother in Australia was the only way she could see him;
the AAT did not engage with Mr Sabbouh’s individual intentions but found “country conditions” in Lebanon to be determinative; and
that the AAT asked itself the wrong question about whether Mr Sabbouh was from a country in financial turmoil.
Counsel for Ms Charaf also took to the Court a number of errors or omissions in the AAT’s decision record, including:
reference to Mr Sabbouh’s father and 3 siblings residing in Lebanon, when in fact 5 siblings resided in Lebanon;
no specific reference made in the Tribunal decision to the letter from Mr Sabbouh’s employer confirming the visa applicant would be granted three months leave from his employment as a house painter in order to visit Australia, confirming that he would be re-employed upon his return to Lebanon;
no reference to medical certificates confirming that Ms Charaf suffers from a number of medical conditions that prevent her travel back to Lebanon;
no specific reference to the fact that 3 of Mr Sabbouh’s siblings who reside in Lebanon, including 2 brothers, have visited Australia in the past and complied with their visa conditions, and how this might impact on the genuineness of Ms Sabbouh’s intentions;
only passing reference of the offer for a $15,000 bond to be imposed and no discussion as to whether not this would provide an incentive for Mr Sabbouh to return to Lebanon;
Mr Sabbouh’s application pre-dating the country information report of the economic collapse in Lebanon in 2020, which was heavily relied upon as a reason to refuse the application; and
no discussion of the fact that Mr Sabbouh lives in Northern Lebanon, well away from explosion in Beirut and why this explosion would impact on his intentions with respect to his visa application.
In response, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs argued that:
the AAT had genuine reasons to believe the visa applicant would not return to Lebanon upon weighing up the socio-economic difficulties in Lebanon together with the visa applicant’s familial ties to Australia;
the bond totalling $15,000.00, and its respective size was not a mandatory consideration for the AAT; and
the sponsor being barred for sponsoring for five years was not raised by the review applicant at the Tribunal and thus not a mandatory consideration for the AAT nor a question directed at Mr Sabbouh’s visa intentions.
While the Court stated that reasons of a Tribunal are not to be scrutinised “with an eye finely attuned to error”, such that it is not necessary for the AAT to refer to every piece of evidence and every contention made by an applicant in its written reason, the Court found that that the AAT’s reasons appear to suggest that any applicant for a sponsored visitor’s visa from Lebanon would be refused such a visa based on the economic circumstances in Lebanon.
The Court further noted that such a line of reasoning constituted jurisdictional error, and that while economic circumstances were a relevant consideration, noting in particular that Mr Sabbouh’s application was made before the economic collapse referred to by the AAT, this was not solely determinative of Mr Sabbouh’s application.
The Court therefore found that the AAT misdirected itself to the incorrect question, failed to consider whether Mr Sabbouh himself would meet the requirements of the Visitor visa, and in doing so, failed to give proper consideration to the evidence before it, including of the visa applicant’s employment circumstances, the bond offered and the effect of Lebanon’s circumstances on the visa applicant’s intentions.
Accordingly, the AAT’s decision was quashed, and Ms Charaf’s application was remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for re-determination according to law.
What does the Charaf case mean for Visitor visa applicants?
The case of Charaf v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 350 suggests that Visitor visa applications should not be refused just on the basis of economic conditions in an applicant’s home country, even though this may certainly be a factor in determining whether a Visitor visa applicant is a Genuine Temporary Entrant to Australia.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether a newly constituted Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) would find in favour of Mr Sabbouh, particularly whether he satisfies the Genuine Temporary Entrant criteria for the grant of a Visitor visa.
Persons who have otherwise been refused a Visitor visa, solely based on economic instability or civil unrest in their home country may otherwise wish to seek advice about their review rights and eligibility for a Visitor visa, in light of the decision in Charaf.
Need help with your Visitor visa application?
Our immigration lawyers at Inclusive Migration have extensive experience in advising on and assisting with complex migration matters, including Visitor visa applications. If you wish to discuss your eligibility for a Visitor visa or whether you have any review rights in relation to a refused Visitor visa application, please do not hesitate to contact us by email at info@inclusivemigration.com.au, through our contact form or by sending us a message on WhatsApp.
