1720570 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding a Subclass 116 (Carer) visa. The applicant sought to migrate to Australia to care for his father, an Australian citizen, who had various health problems. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant was genuinely willing and able to provide the necessary substantial and continuing assistance to his father, and whether such assistance could reasonably be obtained through other means in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under clause 116.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the applicant be the carer of the Australian relative at the time of the decision. This involved assessing the definition of 'carer' as set out in regulation 1.15AA, specifically whether the applicant could provide substantial and continuing assistance and whether such assistance could reasonably be provided by family members in Australia or obtained through welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant claimed to be a carer and was a relative of the sponsor, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate his ability to provide the required care. The applicant had no formal qualifications or prior experience as a carer, relying instead on "common sense." Furthermore, his inability to speak English and drive in Australia presented significant practical barriers to providing independent care, as he would need to rely on others for assistance with basic tasks and emergencies. The Tribunal also noted a lack of evidence regarding the applicant's wife's ability to secure employment to support the family in Australia, which was a stated intention. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.