1507489 (Migration)

This decision concerns a review of a visa application for a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa. The primary visa applicant sought the visa, with two secondary visa applicants also included in the application. The review was conducted by a tribunal, with Member Margie Bourke presiding.

The central legal issues before the tribunal were whether the secondary visa applicants were members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant, as required by clauses 143.311 and 143.321 of the Migration Regulations. This involved assessing the genuineness and continuity of the relationship between the primary visa applicant and the second named visa applicant, who claimed to be his spouse.

The tribunal considered evidence regarding the relationship between the primary and second visa applicants, including their financial arrangements, shared living situation, and social activities. It noted the absence of joint investments, bank accounts, shared expenses, or liabilities. The tribunal also found that the primary visa applicant was not financially responsible for the third named visa applicant, who was living in Melbourne on a student visa. Crucially, the tribunal found that the primary and second visa applicants had met only three times for one day each in the preceding 12 months, and had spent a total of three days together on two occasions at the time of application. They had not established a household together or undertaken significant social activities. Based on this evidence, the tribunal concluded that the parties had not established a genuine and continuing relationship.

Consequently, the tribunal remitted the primary visa applicant's application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the primary visa applicant met criterion cl.143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. However, the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the secondary visa applicants their visas, as they were not found to be members of the primary visa applicant's family unit.