1620221 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, subclass 802. The applicant, who was over 18 years of age at the time of application, lived overseas with their mother and was not engaged in full-time study. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for being a "dependent child" of the sponsor, specifically concerning financial reliance.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant was a "dependent child" of the sponsor at the time of the visa application, and second, whether the applicant satisfied the full-time study requirements. The definition of "dependent child" under the Migration Regulations 1994 was central to the assessment, requiring the applicant to be under 25 years of age or incapacitated for work, and if 18 or older, to be financially reliant on the sponsor for basic needs to a greater extent than any other person or source of support.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that while the sponsor had provided financial assistance, including child support payments and funding for trips and living expenses in Australia, this did not establish the required level of "substantial" and "predominant" reliance for basic needs. The Tribunal referred to established case law, such as *Huynh v MIMA* and *Huang v MIMA*, which clarified that "dependent" does not imply necessity but rather a factual assessment of reliance. The Tribunal found that the applicant's reliance on the sponsor was not greater than reliance on other sources of support, and that religious studies did not qualify as full-time study for the purposes of the visa criteria.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant might consider seeking Ministerial Intervention in their case.