1507831 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 3714

1507831 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3714 (31 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Josefa Rakuko

CASE NUMBER:  1507831

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2015/29820

MEMBER:Nicholas McGowan

DATE:Thursday March 31, 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 802 visa:

·     802.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migrations Regulations.

Statement made on 31 March 2016 at 12:06pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The applicant (born 28 February 1997) applied for the Child subclass 802 visa on 18 May 2015. He was 18 years of age at that time. At the time of application, the Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa contained Subclass 802 (Child) and Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) In this case, claims have only been made in respect of Subclass 802 (Child). The applicant claimed he was a dependent child of his sponsor (his biological mother). The visa application was refused by the Minister’s delegate on 27 May 2015.

2. The applicant appealed the refusal decision to the Tribunal on 9 June 2015. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 1 February 2016. The applicant, his biological mother, and the applicant’s step-father, each gave oral evidence during the hearing. The applicant was represented by his solicitor.

3. Relevantly (given the applicant is adopted), and based on all the evidence on file and at hearing, the applicant is not considered a child of his sponsor. While the definition of ‘child’ in s.5CA(1)(a) of the Act, which is not exclusive, arguably includes biological parents even where that child has been adopted, s.5CA(2) provides for regulations to specify when a person is not a child of another person where the person would be the child of more than two people. Pursuant to r.1.14A(2) if a child has been adopted under formal adoption arrangements mentioned in r.1.04(1)(b) he is taken to be the child of the adoptive parent and taken not to be the child of any other person (including a person who had been the child’s parent or adoptive parent before the adoption). On 21 November 1997 the applicant was adopted under formal adoption arrangements made in accordance with the law of Fiji, being arrangements under which his biological parents ceased to be recognised by law as his parents as defined in s.5(1) of the Act and his aunt became so recognised: r.1.04(1)(b).

4. Accordingly, the applicant is unable to rely upon his biological connection with his sponsor to meet clause 802.212 at the time of application. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the applicant, his half-sister and biological mother (together with their adoptive mother) sought to revoke the 1997 adoption order in the Fijian High Court in 2013 (T1, f.f.45-61). In that case, the Judge found the High Court had no jurisdiction to revoke the order which was granted by the Magistrate’s Court. According to the applicant and his sponsor, no further steps have been taken since the High Court’s ruling to revoke the 1997 adoption order.

5. It is arguable that the words ‘taken not to be the child of any other person’ in r.1.14A(2) and the fact that the applicant was adopted by his aunt under r.1.04(1)(b) means that for migration purposes the applicant is only the child of his adoptive mother/aunt and only a formal adoption arrangement like an annulment of the adoptive mother’s rights will make him the child of his biological mother for the purposes of cl.802.212. However, as there is no authority on the correct reading of r.1.14A, the Tribunal will consider the claim that the applicant is the child of the sponsor because the sponsor adopted the child pursuant to r.1.04(1)(c) and the argument that because she was his adoptive parent after, rather than before, the aunt’s formal adoption referred to in r.1.14A that clause does not apply.

6. The applicant claims that in 2012/2013, when he was 15 years old, his sponsor re-established care and control and assumed a parental role in relation to the applicant under arrangements (other than formal adoption arrangements) in the nature of adoption that were entered into outside Australia: r.1.04(1)(c).

7. Under Regulation 1.04(2), for the purposes of Regulation 1.04(1)(c), arrangements are taken to be in the nature of adoption if the arrangements were made in accordance with the usual practice, or recognised custom, in the culture or cultures of the adoptee and the adopter: Regulation 1.04(2)(a); and, the child-parent relationship between the adoptee and the adopter is significantly closer than any such relationship between the adoptee and  any other person or persons, having regard to the nature and duration of the arrangements: Regulation 1.04(2)(b); and the Minister is satisfied that formal adoption of the kind referred to in Regulation 1.04(1)(b) was not available under the law of the place where the arrangements were made: Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(i)(A); or was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances; Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(i)(B); and the arrangements have not been contrived to circumvent Australian migration requirements: Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(ii).

8. The Tribunal is satisfied from all the evidence, including having had regard to the finding of the Department in its own refusal decision of 27 May 2015 (page 6), that the arrangements entered into in 2012/13 were made in accordance with the usual practice and recognised custom in the culture of the adoptee and the adopter. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets Regulation 1.04(2)(a).

9. The Tribunal is satisfied from all the evidence, in particular the oral evidence of the applicant at hearing, and that his sponsor (and including that of his step-father), that the child-parent relationship between the applicant and his sponsor is significantly closer than any such relationship between the applicant and any other person or persons, having had regard to both the nature of their relationship and the duration. Therefore, the applicant meets Regulation 1.04(2)(b).

10. A person is taken to have been adopted by a person if the adopter assumed a parental role in relation to the adoptee under formal adoption arrangements made in accordance with the law of another country, being arrangements under which the persons who were recognised by law as the parents of the adoptee before those arrangements took effect ceased to be so recognised and the adopter became so recognised: 1.04(1)(b). The applicant provided evidence that in Fiji the formal arrangement under which the aunt’s recognition by law as being the applicant’s parent would cease and his biological mother would be recognised as his parent is the annulment of the adoption by his aunt referred to above. In considering Regulation 1.04(2)(c) the applicant has made the claim that formal adoption of the kind referred to in Regulation 1.04(1)(b) was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of his case: Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(i)(B). The evidence shows that the formal arrangements of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b), being the ability to annul the adoption, were available under the law of Fiji nor did the applicant claim that the exception in r.1.04(2)(c)(A) was available to him.

11. As contained in the delegate’s refusal decision (page 6), the applicant’s agent claimed to the Department that an appeal against the decision of the High Court (which refused to hear the applicant annulment application) had been delayed by the backlog of hearings and appeals stemming from the sacking of the judiciary in Fiji following a coup in late 2006. In these circumstances, it was argued, formal arrangements were then not reasonably practicable.  The Tribunal is minded to agree with such an argument and notes the applicant’s submission that the action taken by them was lodged in February 2012, while the judgment was not handed down on 20 August 2014, at which time the applicant was almost 18 years. Therefore, in all the circumstances, given reasonable steps were made, the Tribunal is satisfied that formal arrangements were not reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal has been satisfied that the applicant meets Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(i)(B).

12. In regards to Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(ii), the Tribunal is satisfied from all the evidence, but in particular the consistent and spontaneous oral evidence of the applicant and his two witnesses at the hearing, that the arrangements in this case have not been contrived to circumvent Australian migration requirements. Therefore, Regulation 1.04(2)(c)(ii) is met.

13. The word “dependent” is defined in r.1.05A.  This regulation prescribes the objective criteria to be met for dependence to be established. First, r.1.05A(1) stipulates that the person who is claiming to be dependent (the ‘first person’) must be at the time at which consideration is being given, ‘wholly or substantially’ reliant on the other person. Second, that degree of reliance is required to have been for a substantial period immediately before that time. Thirdly, the financial support being provided must be to meet the first person’s basic needs in three respects: i.e. food, shelter and clothing. Lastly, the first person’s reliance on the other person must be greater than his or her reliance on any other person or source of financial support to meet those basic needs. Based on the oral evidence of the applicant and in particular his biological mother and step-father, as presented at hearing, the Tribunal has been satisfied that the criteria in r.1.05A are met. This is because the applicant has satisfied the Tribunal he has been substantially reliant on his biological mother (for substantial period of time) to meet his basic needs for food, shelter and clothing (and more so), than on any other person or source of support. It therefore follows that r.1.05A is satisfied. Based on all the evidence available to the Tribunal, it is also satisfied that the applicant is neither engaged to be married nor has a spouse or de facto partner.

14. As a result of all the above findings, Regulation 1.04(1)(c) has been met. The applicant is a dependent child of a person who is a holder of a permanent visa.

15. Accordingly, based on all the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets clause 802.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migrations Regulations at the time of application.

16. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the matter to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

    * * * * *