1933355 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, specifically a Subclass 101 (Child) visa. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning their eligibility for this visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant met the criteria for being a "dependent child" of an Australian citizen.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 101.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to the dependent child criteria for a Subclass 101 visa. This involved assessing whether the applicant was under 25 years of age, was the natural and biological child of the review applicant, and crucially, whether they were a "dependent child" as defined by the Regulations at the time of application.

The Tribunal found that the review applicant was an Australian citizen and that the visa applicant was their natural and biological child, as confirmed by a DNA report. The visa applicant was also not married or engaged at the time of application and had not turned 25. However, the Tribunal noted that the visa applicant resided with their maternal grandmother in Bangladesh, and their uncle provided financial support for the household. While the definition of "dependent child" in regulation 1.03 requires reliance on the parent for financial support for basic needs, the Tribunal considered that this reliance need not be absolute, but rather a factual question of whether the applicant was relying on the parent. Given the evidence regarding the financial support provided by the uncle and the grandmother's home ownership, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied that the visa applicant was dependent on the review applicant for financial support at the time of application. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under cl 101.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.