Balmocena (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for an Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa, Subclass 116 (Carer), made by a visa applicant. The review applicant, who was seeking to sponsor the visa applicant, did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the visa applicant could reasonably be cared for by alternative arrangements.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the visa applicant could not reasonably be cared for by alternative arrangements, a criterion for the Subclass 116 visa. The Tribunal also considered whether the visa applicant met the prescribed criteria for any other visa subclasses, though the focus of the decision appears to be on the Subclass 116 visa.

The Tribunal found that due to the limited evidence before it, particularly the absence of the review applicant at the hearing, it could not be satisfied that the visa applicant could not reasonably be cared for by alternative arrangements. The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that they meet the criteria for the visa sought, and in this instance, that onus had not been discharged.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant the Subclass 116 visa. The Tribunal also noted that there was no material before it that would permit a finding that the applicant met the criteria for any other visa subclasses.