1608177 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa by a Papua New Guinea citizen who was residing in Australia with his Australian citizen mother. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4018, which requires the Minister to be satisfied that there is no compelling reason to believe that granting the visa would not be in the best interests of the applicant.

The Tribunal was required to determine if PIC 4018 was satisfied, particularly in light of Regulation 1.20KB of the Migration Regulations 1994, which imposes limitations on the approval of sponsorships for applicants under 18 if the sponsor has been charged with or convicted of a registrable offence. The initial delegate had not been satisfied that the sponsor met the requirements of Regulation 1.20KB due to a lack of a Papua New Guinea police clearance, leading to the conclusion that PIC 4018 was not met.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate's initial concerns regarding the sponsor's lack of a Papua New Guinea police clearance were valid, the sponsor had since provided a clearance dated 2 June 2016 indicating no criminal record, along with an Australian Federal Police clearance. The Tribunal accepted that the sponsor had no criminal convictions and therefore met Regulation 1.20KB. Furthermore, considering the sponsor's full-time employment, her support of her children in Australia, and character references, the Tribunal found that there was no compelling reason to believe that granting the visa would not be in the best interests of the applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met PIC 4018. The Tribunal remitted the application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria for PIC 4018 in clause 802.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.