1912564 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa, subclass 143. The review applicant sought to establish that the visa applicant was their customary parent. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant, Ms C, was the customary parent of the review applicant, Ms A, within the meaning of regulation 1.04 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms C was the customary parent of Ms A, and consequently, whether the visa applicant met the criteria for a subclass 143 visa, specifically clauses 143.211, 143.212, and 143.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. These clauses relate to the visa applicant being the parent of a settled Australian citizen or permanent resident, sponsorship requirements, and the balance of family test.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the personal history of the review applicant, Ms A, including her birth and upbringing. It was established that Ms A's birth mother, Ms B, was the elder of two sisters and had a rural household registration (hukou). Ms B was sent to a rural area under the China rustication policy. The visa applicant, Ms C, testified that she felt indebted to her older sister for undertaking this compulsory relocation, as it meant Ms C herself was not required to go to a rural area. Following her birth, Ms A was sent to Shanghai to be cared for by Ms C after Ms B finished breastfeeding her.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration by the Minister. The direction was that the visa applicant, Ms C, met the criteria specified in clauses 143.211, 143.212, and 143.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations for a subclass 143 visa.