1602845 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa by Mr Quimpo, a national of the Philippines. The dispute centred on whether Mr Quimpo qualified as a "remaining relative" of an "Australian relative" as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's sister, Ms Rosario Mayobelle Quimpo-Perez, was an Australian relative usually resident in Australia, and if Mr Quimpo himself was a remaining relative of Ms Quimpo-Perez.

The court was asked to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 835 visa, specifically whether he was a "remaining relative" of an "Australian relative" at the time of application and decision. This involved assessing whether Ms Quimpo-Perez, the claimed Australian relative, was "usually resident in Australia" and whether Mr Quimpo, along with his spouse and any dependent children, had no "near relatives" other than those who were also usually resident in Australia and held Australian citizenship, permanent residency, or eligible New Zealand citizenship.

The Tribunal applied the definitions of "Australian relative" and "remaining relative" from the Migration Regulations 1994. It found that Ms Quimpo-Perez, being an Australian citizen residing in Australia, met the criteria for an "Australian relative" under r.1.03 and r.1.15(1)(b). The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's son and daughter resided in the Philippines, and his wife was separated from him. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria under cl.835.212 and cl.835.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa for reconsideration. The reconsideration was to proceed with the direction that the applicant met the specified criteria for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa.