AZUPARDO (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms Donna Morada Azupardo and her partner, Mr John-Michael Azupardo, who sought to be granted Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas, specifically a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa. The dispute arose because the sponsorship required for the visa had ceased to be in effect at the time of the decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 836 visa, particularly concerning the requirement for a valid sponsorship to be in force at the time of the decision. This involved determining if the death of the primary applicant's sponsor rendered the sponsorship invalid and, consequently, if the primary applicant could satisfy the visa requirements. A secondary issue concerned the eligibility of the secondary applicant, who applied as a member of the primary applicant's family unit.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the sponsorship was in force at the time of application, the death of the sponsor on 24 August 2020 meant that the sponsorship was no longer in effect at the time of the decision, as required by clause 836.227 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Consequently, the primary applicant could not meet the sponsorship requirements for the visa. As the primary applicant failed to satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 836 visa, the secondary applicant, who relied on being a member of the primary applicant's family unit, also could not satisfy the relevant criteria under clause 836.321.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Subclass 836 visas. No claims or material were presented to support eligibility for any other visa subclasses.