1602243 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa. The applicant, who was under 18 years of age, sought the visa. The dispute centred on whether the requirements of Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4017, concerning consent from persons with parental responsibility, and PIC 4018, relating to the best interests of the applicant, were met.

The Tribunal was required to determine if each person who could lawfully determine the applicant's place of residence consented to the grant of the visa, as stipulated by PIC 4017. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether granting the visa would be in the best interests of the applicant, as required by PIC 4018. The Tribunal also considered clause 802.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that both of the applicant's parents, Ms Wardhani and Mr Haryanto, who had parental responsibility, had provided their consent to the visa grant, evidenced by a completed and signed Form 1229, along with a copy of Mr Haryanto's identity card. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that PIC 4017 was met. Having heard from the applicant, her mother, and her step-father, the Tribunal was also satisfied that there was no compelling reason to believe that the visa grant would not be in the applicant's best interests, thus meeting PIC 4018. The Tribunal concluded that clause 802.225 was also met.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with the direction that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 802 visa, specifically clause 802.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.