1911413 (Migration)

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed the refusal of a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, subclass 101. The applicant, who was the proposed sponsor, contended that the MRT had erred in its assessment of the visa applicant's relationship to her.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the MRT had made a jurisdictional error in its determination that the visa applicant was not the biological child of the review applicant at the time the visa application was made. This question turned on whether the MRT had properly considered the evidence before it, particularly in light of the absence of DNA evidence and certain inconsistencies regarding the composition of the review applicant's family.

The court found that the MRT had not made a jurisdictional error. It reasoned that the MRT was entitled to form the view that it was not satisfied that the visa applicant was the biological child of the review applicant, given the lack of definitive DNA evidence and the identified inconsistencies. The MRT had considered the available evidence and reached a conclusion open to it on that evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.