1601802 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4042

1601802 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4042 (7 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Shameer Kamal Qureshi

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Babu Joseph Parkash

CASE NUMBER:  1601802

DIBP REFERENCE:  OSF 2002/134218

MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson

DATE:7 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the visa applicant the subclass 103 Parent (Class AX) visa.

Statement made on 07 July 2016 at 9:31am

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 on 10 December 2015 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Parent (Migrant) (Class AX) Subclass 103 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 26 April 2002. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant failed to provide to the department an assurance of support accepted by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services and therefore did not meet the criteria in cl.103.226.

   Background

3. The visa applicant is a citizen of Singapore and is currently 60 years old. He was sponsored for a subclass 103 Parent visa by his son, the review applicant who is an Australian citizen.

4. The department requested from the visa applicant evidence of the assurance of support. On 20 April 2015 Centrelink informed the department that the assurance of support for the applicant had been rejected. The department advised the visa applicant of this, and the visa applicant stated that he was making arrangements for another assurer for his application. Centerlink advised the department on 25 June 2015 that this further application had been rejected. On 11 November 2015 the visa applicant sent an email to the department confirming that there was no one to complete the assurance of support.

5. As the assurance of support had not been provided, the delegate concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria in cl.103.226 and refused the application.

   Further information to the tribunal

6. The visa applicant provided a statement to the tribunal. He stated that he had had a difficult life and had been separated from his children due to the actions of their mother. He said that he is now not able to see them regularly or at all. He stated that a number of people have been willing to provide the assurance of support but were unable to meet the criteria set by Centerlink. He said that he had done his best to meet the assurance of support, but it was beyond his control. He asked that on compassionate and humanitarian grounds his case be approved.

7. The review applicant appeared before the tribunal on 7 July 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.

8. The tribunal explained to the review applicant the reason for the refusal of the visa for his father. The review applicant acknowledged that he understood the reason for the refusal. He said that he is currently a student and will not complete his degree until the end of the year. He acknowledged that no assurance of support had been able to be arranged for his father and because of this he did not meet this criterion for the grant of the visa.

9. For the following reasons, the tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. A time of decision criteria for the grant of a subclass 102 Parent visa is that the Minister is satisfied that an assurance of support for the applicant has been accepted by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services. The review applicant has acknowledged that he has not been able to provide such an assurance of support to either the department or the tribunal on review.

11. The visa applicant has put forward arguments as to compassionate or humanitarian grounds as to why the requirements for the assurance of support should be waived. The tribunal is required to apply the law and does not have a discretion which would allow the requirement to be waived.

12. As an assurance of support has not been provided, the visa applicant does not meet the criteria in cl.102.226 and the decision of the department to refuse the visa application must be affirmed.

    DECISION

13. The tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the visa applicant the subclass 103 Parent (Class AX) visa.

    Hugh Sanderson
    Member