Dakic, Maja [2001] MRTA 3784 (20 August 2001)

CATCHWORDS: Review of visa refusal - Resident Return - criterion 155.212 - no substantial ties with Australia - criterion 157.212 not in Australia for 1 day in the 5 years before application.

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the visa applicant is not entitled to the grant of a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.

1. Mr Dragovan Petrovic (the visa applicant), a national of Yugoslavia, born on 4 March 1929, applied for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa on 7 September 2000. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the delegate) decided to refuse to grant the visa on 4 October 2000.

2. Mrs Maja Dakic (the review applicant), the daughter of the visa applicant, lodged a valid application for review to the Tribunal on 5 December 2000. The decision is reviewable by the Tribunal and the application for review has been properly made by a person with standing to apply for review.

3. The Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and the various regulations made under that Act, principally the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), provide for different classes of visas, and the criteria for the grant of visas. In reaching a decision, the Tribunal is bound by the Act, the various regulations and written directions issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Act. Some matters may be the subject of policy, as found in publications such as the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and the Migration Series Instructions (MSIs), produced by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). The Tribunal is required to have regard to policy and apply it unless there are cogent reasons for departing from policy.

4. The Tribunal has the power to affirm, vary or set aside a decision to refuse to grant a visa. It also has the power to remit an application for a visa. Such a remittal may be accompanied by directions that a visa applicant meets one or more of the criteria for a visa. It is then a matter for the Minister or a delegate to consider any remaining criteria. A review by the Tribunal is generally limited to a consideration of whether a visa applicant meets one or more essential criteria, with the application remitted or the decision affirmed on that basis.

5. The criteria and policy immediately relevant to this review are:

Regulation 1.03 to the Regulations

Parts 155 and 157 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Migration Series Instruction -285: Resident Return Visas For Applications Made on and after 1 July 1999

6. The Tribunal generally has regard to the regulations as the regulations stood at the time of a visa application. However, subsequent amendments may apply in some circumstances.

7. The Tribunal had the following documents: the MRT case file N00/06570 and the DIMA case papers, which show that the visa applicant was granted a permanent visa on 29 July 1969. The visa applicant departed Australia on 16 August 1969. On 18 July 1969, the visa applicant lodged an application for permission to re-enter Australia. On the application, he stated that he was going to Yugoslavia for a holiday for up to one year. He was granted a Resident Re-Entry visa on 4 August 1969, which expired on 4 August 1970. On 14 March 1990, the visa applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visa and departed on 16 May 1990.

8. The visa applicant has only one child who is an Australian citizen and currently living in Australia. The visa applicant lives with his spouse in Yugoslavia.

9. The visa applicant applied for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa on 7 September 2000. In addition to providing information about his permanent residence and his Resident Re-Entry visa, he provided the following:

* A letter, dated 13 August 1969, from the Technical Director of Australian Selection (Pty) Limited, certifying that the visa applicant was employed as an Assistant Geologist from January 1964 to May 1965.

* A certificate of service, dated 31 July 1969, from the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, certifying that the visa applicant was employed as a geologist from 25 May 1965 to 5 May 1967.

* A letter, dated 30 July 1969, from a Senior Geologist, BHP Whyalla, confirming that he worked with the visa applicant from 1965 to 1967.

* A letter, dated 13 August 1969, from the Head Engineering Geology Section of the NSW Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission, confirming the type of employment the visa applicant undertook.

* A copy of a member ship card for the Australasian Institute of Metallurgy, confirming the visa applicant's membership for the year ending 31 December 1970.

* A letter, dated 14 October 1966, from the University of Adelaide, thanking the visa applicant for his assistance with a group of students in the Honours Year.

* A copy of a translation, dated 23 June 1969, confirming that the visa applicant holds a Diploma (Degree) of Mining Geology.

* A note, dated 6 September2000, from the visa applicant, stating that the only reason that he did not return to Australia was the injury of his wife.

* A statement, dated 6 September 2000, from the visa applicant's wife, stating that in February 1970 she fell on slippery frozen ground and struck her head. The fall resulted in an extremely strong headache, dizziness and "the swoon". She stated that it was impossible for her to travel as she needed long term treatment and convalescence for the injury. She stated that her only daughter lives with her husband in Sydney and is expecting a baby at the beginnning of November. She stated that her daughter is an Australian citizen and her son-in-law an Australian resident.

* A certified translation of a document, dated 4 September 2000, from Professor Sedmak,Neuro-Psychiatrist, and Associate Professor Coric, Neuro-Psychiatrist, stating that they treated the visa applicant's wife after her fall in 1970 and diagnosed concussion and postcommitional syndrome. Only after one year or two did the patient gain the freedom to move around. During the period 1970 and approximately September/October 1972, it was "counter-indicated that patient takes any type of travel".

* A certified translation of a medical report, dated 30 August 2000, confirming that the visa applicant's wife sustained a fall with head injuries in 1970 and that she was not capable of travelling long distances.

10. The delegate decided on 12 September 2000 to refuse the visa application. The delegate found that the visa applicant had been absent from Australia for the past 31 years and due to the prolonged absence found that the visa applicant did not satisfy clause 155.212(2). The delegate was not satisfied that at the time of application the visa applicant had been 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. The delegate also found that the visa applicant did not satisfy clause 157.212(2)(a).

11. The delegate did not consider that the visa applicant had substantial ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia. The delegate found that the single tie to Australia was the visa applicant's daughter and her family who reside in Sydney. The delegate was also mindful of clause 155.212(3)(a), which requires that an applicant not be absent from Australia for a continuous period of five years or more before their application unless there are compelling reasons for the absence. The delegate did not consider that the visa applicant's claim that a head injury to his wife 31 years ago would prevent them from travelling for this period. The delegate found the claim unrealistic and not acceptable as being compelling. For the same reasons the delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant met clause 157.212.

12. When lodging the application for review on 5 December 2000, the review applicant stated that there were compelling reasons which prevented the visa applicant from returning to Australia. She explained that it was in her parents' best interest to return to Australia but a series of unfortunate events happened to prevent their return. Her mother had a serious head injury in 1970, which required prolonged medical treatment and recovery, then her mother's mother suffered a serious illness and died in 1972, then her father's father became ill and died in 1975. In the meantime, she started to attend school and they settled down in Yugoslavia. Now that she lives in Australia and is their only child, they wish to sell their property in Belgrade and come to Australia to live with her, her husband and their child.

13. On 18 May 2001, the review applicant provided additional documents, some of which had not been provided before, including:

* An undated statement from the visa applicant, stating that he arrived in Australia on 1 August 1963 and was later joined by his wife. His daughter was born on 25 May 1967. In August 1969, he travelled with his family to Yugoslavia to visit their parents and for their parents to meet their daughter. He had an agreement with the Sydney Water Conservation & Irrigation Commission that his position would be waiting for him on his return. In February 1970, his wife fell and hit her head on the ice, causing brain concussion and damage of neck vertebra, which made any type of travel impossible. Immediately after her injury, her mother fell ill and died in June 1972 and his father fell ill and died in April 1975. He omitted to report to the Australian embassy to extend their stay due to the illness of his wife and his parent. Before his father's death, he made him promise to take care of the family as his mother was getting old and was alone and his elder sister who was an invalid with a dislocated hip. His brother was married to an Australian wife and remained in Australia. Upon the death of his mother, he officially became the guardian of his sister and took care of her until her death in January 2000, when he had fulfilled his family obligations. He was in constant contact with his brother through letters, phone calls and the visits he and his family made to Yugoslavia. His brother's children became close to his daughter. In 1990, he and his daughter visited Australia and stayed in his brother's house. His daughter lives in Sydney with her husband and her daughter and his greatest wish is to return to Australia and spend the rest of his life with them and to be near his brother and his family. He has also kept in contact with friends made in Australia, which kept him connected to Australia in his heart.

* A copy of the review applicant's expired Australian passport, showing her trip to Australia in 1990.

* A copy of the review applicant's passport issued on 26 November 1985, which expired on 26 November 1990.

* A certified translation of a death certificate for Miroslava Jankovic on 2 June 1972.

* A certified translation of a death certificate for Bozidar Petrovic on 3 April 1975.

* A certified translation of a death certificate for Radmila Petrovic on 22 January 2000.

* A certified translation of a document, which appointed the visa applicant as his sister's guardian from 28 December 1994. The document states that Radmila Petrovic was not capable of caring for herself and that she had lived with her mother until her death on 21 December 1994.

* A certified translation of a medical report from an unknown doctor, stating that the visa applicant's wife reported to the medical centre for examination on 19 February 1970 after a fall in an icy street. She hit her head and lost consciousness. She had an x-ray, which did not show fracture of the head but changes were visible on the neck vertebra and she was diagnosed with brain concussion. She complained of strong headaches, vertigo, sickness and disorientation. She was referred to a specialist for further treatment. She was seen on 6, 10 and 18 March 1970.

* A statutory declaration from Bozidar Miles, an Australian citizen who became friends with the visa applicant in 1963 and has maintained that friendship.

* A statutory declaration from Dusko Mirkovic, an Australian citizen who became acquainted with the visa applicant through his father-in-law and appreciated advice he gave on migrating to Australia.

* A statutory declaration from Prvoslav Jovanoic, an Australian citizen who became friends with the visa applicant in 1963 and has maintained that friendship. He visited the visa applicant in Yugoslavia in 1975 and 2000.

* A statement, dated 5 May 2001, from the visa applicant's wife, confirming that she was unwell due to her fall in February 1970 until the end of 1972, that her mother was sick at the same time that she was and that the visa applicant's father became ill and died in 1975. She stated that her husband knew that his old mother and invalid sister could not live independently and they had to stay in Yugoslavia to care for them. She worked as an architect for many years and still works part time. She wishes to remain in Sydney with her daughter and her family.

* A certificate of service from the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, showing that the visa applicant's wife worked as an architect from 1 November 1965 to 9 September 1966.

* A letter, dated 10 May 2001, from the Serbian National Federation in Australia Inc, supporting the visa applicant's application.

* A statutory declaration from the visa applicant's brother, supporting the application.

* A statutory declaration from the wife of the visa applicant's brother, supporting the application.

* A statutory declaration from the son of the visa applicant's brother, supporting the application.

14. The Tribunal held a hearing on 6 June 2001 and the review applicant and the visa applicant gave evidence. A serbian interpreter assisted the Tribunal. The review applicant gave the following evidence:

She doesn't know why her father came to Australia but thinks that he followed his brother who came here first.

In 1969, her father decided to return to Yugoslavia for a holiday as he had not seen his family for seven years. After a few months, her mother fell ill and she was not able to travel. She was ill for a year or two. Then her mother's mother became ill and died and then her father's father became ill and died. Her father decided to find a job and she started school. All of this affected returning to Australia.

The visa applicant's brother and two cousins live in Australia and she came to Australia two and a half years ago. She has no brothers or sisters. Her father has no other brothers or sisters who are living. Her mother has one sister who lives in another town.

She explained that her father owned property with his brother in Australia but sold it. He owns a house in Yugoslavia. He has no assets in Australia. He has savings and a pension in Yugoslavia.

She confirmed that the visa applicant has worked whilst outside Australia but is not working now.

She said that the benefit of having the visa applicant in Australia would be that she needs someone to assist her in looking after her daughter. She said that her father wants to be in Australia and would enjoy being here. She confirmed that there was no barrier to her travelling overseas.

The visa applicant's brother would be happy to have him in Australia.

15. The visa applicant gave the following evidence:

He came to Australia to live as he heard about the life here from his relative. He loved the life here, has a lot of friends here and has relatives in Australia.

He has no property in Australia. He had a property before with his brother and they had a disagreement about it and it was sold. He had thought when he left Australia that he could buy a house and land on his return.

He explained that his wife became sick after falling on the ice and striking her head. She was not able to travel for two years. His wife's mother became ill and died and then his father became ill and died. He explained that his father was sick from 1972 to 1975.

His daughter started to go to school. His mother was old and his sister an invalid. He felt that he had to help his mother. He confirmed that his sister suffered from dislocated hips and when his mother died in 1994, she had to be put in an old age home until she died. He had to help her with food and other things.

He said it wasn't possible to look after his sister from Australia as it is too far away and too expensive to return every few months.

He confirmed that he has a house in Yugoslavia and some savings.

He confirmed that his ties with Australia are through his daughter and her family and his brother and his family. He confirmed that he has a lot of friends in Australia. He said that the benefit to Australia would be that he would sell his house in Yugoslavia and buy property in Australia. He thinks that his wife would be allowed to come to Australia if he is.

He said that he loves Australia. He is very happy that his daughter wanted to stay in Australia. He really always felt homesick for Australia and always wanted to return.

16. The visa applicant has applied for a Resident Return visa. The purpose of a resident return visa is to facilitate the re-entry into Australia of non-citizen permanent residents 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 right to return to Australia and remain permanently (MSI 285).

17. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class BB contained the following subclasses: Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa and Subclass 157 (Three Month Resident Return). The two subclasses will be considered separately.

18. Two criteria to be satisfied at time of application for the grant of a Subclass 155 visa are clauses 155.211 and 155.212 of Schedule 2. Clause 155.211 requires the visa applicant to be an `Australian permanent resident' or a `former Australian permanent resident' at time of application. Regulation 1.03 defines `Australian permanent resident' as `a non-citizen who is the holder of a permanent visa'. The visa applicant once held a permanent visa. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant was granted a permanent visa on 29 July 1969. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant was a former Australian permanent resident at time of application and therefore satisfies clause 155.211.

(1) The applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2), (3), (3A) or (4).

(2) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant was lawfully present in Australia for a period of, or periods that total, not less than 2 years in the period of 5 years immediately before the application for the visa and, during that time, the applicant:

(i) the holder of a permanent visa or a permanent entry permit; or

(b) was not the holder of a temporary visa or a bridging visa.

(3) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is outside Australia, and the Minister is satisfied that the applicant has substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia, and the applicant:

(a) has not been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years or more immediately before the application for the visa, unless there are compelling reasons for the absence, and the applicant:

(ii) last departed Australia as an Australian permanent resident; or

(iii) last departed Australia as an Australian citizen, but has subsequently lost or renounced Australian citizenship; or

(b) was an Australian citizen, or an Australian permanent resident, less than 10 years before the application, and has not been absent from Australia for a period of, or periods that total, more than 5 years in the period from the date that the applicant last departed Australia as an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident to the date of the application, unless there are compelling reasons for the absence.

(3A) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is in Australia, and the Minister is satisfied that the applicant:

(a) has substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia; and

(b) has not been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years or more since:

(i) the date of grant of the applicant's most recent permanent visa, unless there are compelling reasons for the absence; or

(ii) the date on which the applicant ceased to be a citizen, unless there are compelling reasons for the absence.

(4) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is a member of the family unit of a person who:

(a) has been granted a Subclass 155 visa and that visa is still in effect; or

(b) meets the requirements of subclause (2), (3) or (3A) and has lodged either:

(i) a combined application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa with the applicant; or

(ii) a separate application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.

20. The five years immediately before the visa application was made was the period 7 September 1995 to 6 September 2000. During this period, the visa applicant was not present in Australia at all. As the visa applicant was not present in Australia for at least 2 years during this period, the Tribunal considers that the visa applicant cannot satisfy subclause 155.212(2). Subclause 155.212(3A) does not apply in this case as the visa applicant is not in Australia. Subclause 155.212(4) does not apply in this case as the visa applicant is not a member of a family unit of a person who has been granted a Subclass 155 visa.

21. To meet the requirements of subclause 155.212(3), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the visa applicant has substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties, which are of benefit to Australia. A visa applicant is only required to have one of the four types of ties with Australia to satisfy this criterion (MSI 285). Having regard to the evidence before the Tribunal, this issue is discussed below.

Whether the applicant has substantial business ties, which are of benefit to Australia

22. There is no evidence, which indicates that the visa applicant has substantial business ties with Australia, which are of benefit to Australia. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant does not have substantial business ties, which are of benefit to Australia.

Whether the applicant has substantial cultural ties, which are of benefit to Australia

23. There is no evidence, which indicates that the visa applicant has substantial cultural ties with Australia, which are of benefit to Australia. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant does not have substantial cultural ties with Australia, which are of benefit to Australia.

Whether the applicant has substantial employment ties, which are of benefit to Australia

24. There is no evidence to suggest that the visa applicant has substantial employment ties with Australia at present. The visa applicant provided copies of some references from his former employers in Australia. These references indicate that the visa applicant worked as a geologist in Australia during 1964 and 1969. The visa applicant was a member of the Australian institute of Mining & Metallurgy for the year ending 31 December 1970. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant worked in Australia as a geologist between 1964 and 1969. However, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant is not employed currently and does not have substantial employment ties currently, which are of benefit to Australia.

Whether the applicant has substantial personal ties which, are of benefit to Australia

(e) Personal ties which are of benefit to Australia

4.4.19 Decision makers have the flexibility to consider a range of personal ties to Australia that may not fall under the categories of business, cultural or employment ties, but are the reason for the applicant's wish to return to Australia. Examples of personal ties include but are not limited to:

* long term residence in Australia prior to the last five years, particularly if the applicant has spent their formative years in Australia, or studied or been employed in Australia;

* ownership of a home and/or other personal assets in Australia;

* the applicant has close family members, or close friends in the nature of family, who are permanent residents or citizens and who reside in Australia; or

* the applicant is travelling or residing overseas with an Australian citizen spouse and/or children who may suffer hardship if the applicant was not granted an RRV.

4.4.20 Relevant considerations in assessing whether a personal tie is substantial are whether an applicant regards Australia as home and whether the applicant has stronger ties of a similar nature in any other country. It is recognised that a person may have substantial ties to more than one country. Therefore, the applicant's physical and emotional ties with Australia should be weighed against ties in any other country (for example; place of residence, house, schooling of children, residence of spouse, citizenship of immediate family, family and friend ties and general identification). The applicant's personal, physical and emotional ties to Australia should outweigh the applicant's ties to any other country.

4.4.21 Substantial personal ties may be of benefit to Australia in the sense that the applicant is a participating member of the Australian community and economy, or that they are likely to become a participating member of the Australian community and economy in the future, and that their ties enrich the lives of individual Australian residents and citizens. It is also relevant to consider the potential hardship to the applicant's Australian citizen family unit members (who can travel to and from Australia at will), or to any other Australian citizens with whom the applicant has close ties, if the applicant is not granted an RRV.

26. The visa applicant lived in Australia from 1 August 1963 until 16 August 1969. The visa applicant was granted a permanent residence on 29 July 1969. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant has only returned to Australia for a visit from 14 March 1990 to 16 May 1990, since 16 August 1969. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant only resided in Australia for 16 days since being granted his permanent visa. The Tribunal finds that at the time of application the visa applicant was 71 years of age and had only spent just over four years of his life in Australia.

27. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant contributed to Australia's economy from 1964 to 1969. He is not currently working and the Tribunal considers that it is unlikely that he would work again in Australia.

28. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant owns no property in Australia and has no assets in Australia. The Tribunal notes the visa applicant's evidence that if he were granted the visa, he intends to sell his house in Yugoslavia and buy property in Australia.

29. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant's only child, the review applicant, is an Australian citizen and lives in Australia. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant is married with one child. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant's evidence that she was not educated in Australia and that she returned to Australia recently. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant's brother is an Australian citizen and lives in Australia with his family. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant's wife resides in Yugoslavia with the visa applicant.

30. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant made a number of friends whilst he was in Australia. The Tribunal has statutory declarations from two Australian citizen friends who confirm that they have retained their friendships with the visa applicant. The Tribunal has a statutory declaration from a person who is acquainted with the visa applicant, who gave him advice about migrating to Australia.

31. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has personal ties to Australia through his daughter and her family and through his brother and his family. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant has personal ties to Australia through a number of Australian citizen friends. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the visa applicant had any other personal ties with Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant has personal ties with Yugoslavia, in that he has lived, worked and raised his family in Yugoslavia, for all but four years. The visa applicant owns property and assets in Yugoslavia and his wife lives there with him.

32. The visa applicant's ties to Australia are not sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that there is a benefit to Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant meets paragraph 155.212(3)(a). As such the visa applicant is unable to satisfy subclause 155.212(3).

33. The Tribunal considers that the visa applicant does not satisfy clause 155.212 as he does not meet the requirements of subclause (2), (3), (3A) or (4). The Tribunal considers that the visa applicant is unable to satisfy one of the primary criteria. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant meets the criteria for a Subclass 155 visa.

34. Three criteria to be satisfied at time of application for a Subclass 157 visa are clauses 157.211, 157.212 and 157.213 of Schedule 2. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant satisfies subclause 157.211 as he was a former Australian permanent resident at time of application.

35. To satisfy clause 157.212, the visa applicant must meet the requirements of subclause (2) or (3), which state:

(2) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant:

(a) was lawfully present in Australia for a period of, or periods that total, not less than 1 day but less than 2 years in the period of 5 years immediately before the application for the visa and, during that time, the applicant:

(A) the holder of a permanent visa or a permanent entry permit; or

(ii) was not the holder of a temporary visa or a bridging visa; and

(i) has compelling and compassionate reasons for departing Australia; or

(ii) if outside Australia, had compelling and compassionate reasons for his or her last departure from Australia.

(3) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is a member of the family unit of a person who:

(a) has been granted a Subclass 157 visa and that visa is still in effect; or

(b) meets the requirements of subclause (2) and has lodged either:

(i) a combined application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa with the applicant; or

(ii) a separate application for a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.

36. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant was not lawfully present in Australia for a period of, or periods that total, not less than 1 day but less then 2 years in the period of 5 years immediately before the application for the visa. The visa applicant lodged the visa application on 7 September 2000 and the Tribunal finds that he was not in Australia for one day in the period of 5 years before this date. The Tribunal considers that the visa applicant did not satisfy paragraph 157.212(2)(a) at the time of application and does not meet subclause 157.212(2).

37. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant is not a member of a family unit of a person who has been granted a Subclass 157 visa and he did not satisfy subclause 157.212(3) at the time of application.

38. The Tribunal considers that the visa applicant does not satisfy clause 157.212 at the time of application and is unable to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 157 visa.

39. As the visa applicant does not satisfy clauses 155.212 and 157.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, the visa applicant does not meet the criteria for a Subclass 155 or a Subclass 157 visa. The Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.

40. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the visa applicant is not entitled to the grant of a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.