2007737 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas (Subclass 101) to three applicants. The sponsor, who claimed to be the biological mother of the applicants, was a citizen of Papua New Guinea who had become an Australian citizen. The delegate had refused the visas, partly on the grounds that the sponsor did not have sole custody of the second and third applicants, who were minors at the time of application, and therefore were not dependent children. The review was heard by Brendan Darcy.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 101 (Child) visa, specifically concerning the sponsor's sole custody and the dependency of the applicants. The Tribunal also considered the evidence relating to the death of the applicants' father and the sponsor's financial support of the children. The Tribunal noted that the delegate's decision was disorganised and ambiguous, making it unclear how the delegate reached the conclusions that the applicants did not satisfy the legal criteria.

The Tribunal found that DNA test results confirmed the sponsor was not excluded from identification as the mother of the applicants. While the applicants' father had died and his death was not registered, and there were discrepancies in the father's name on the applicants' birth certificates due to alleged corrupt practices by registry officials, the Tribunal considered the sponsor's evidence of financial support for the children. This evidence included statements from the sponsor and a letter from an individual who facilitated money transfers from the sponsor to the children. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal remitted the applications for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas for reconsideration, directing that the first applicant met specific criteria, the second applicant met specific criteria, and the third applicant met specific criteria.