Bahadori (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa application where the applicant was a secondary applicant seeking to join her mother, the primary applicant. The core dispute revolved around whether the secondary applicant, who was over 18 years of age, qualified as a "member of the family unit" of the primary applicant at the time of the visa application. This qualification hinged on whether the secondary applicant was "dependent" on her mother or her mother's spouse.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the secondary applicant met the definition of a "dependent child" or a "dependent" person as defined in the Migration Regulations. Specifically, it needed to assess whether, at the time of application, the secondary applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on her mother or her mother's spouse for financial support to meet her basic needs, and whether this reliance was greater than any reliance on other sources. The Tribunal also had to consider the credibility of the evidence presented, particularly in light of alleged miscommunications with the Department, inconsistent relationship evidence, and claims of fabricated information.

The Tribunal found that while there were statements from siblings and friends asserting the secondary applicant's dependency, and some evidence of money transfers, these transfers occurred after the relevant application date or were not independently verified as supporting the secondary applicant for a substantial period immediately before and at the time of the application in August 2013. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the sponsor and the secondary applicant, and found that claims of memory issues or the time of day in Pakistan did not adequately explain these discrepancies or the lack of cohesive evidence. A psychiatrist's letter regarding the secondary applicant's social illness was accepted as indicating current challenges but did not provide information about past dependency.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, concluding that the secondary applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a member of the family unit due to a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating dependency at the time of application.