Baro (Migration)

Baro (Migration) [2022] AATA 1807 (6 June 2022)
.
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Faiz Justin Lada Baro
VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Jackson Faiz Justin Lada
Mr Jacob Faiz Justin Lada
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Emete Joeslka (MARN: 0100301)
CASE NUMBER:  2102397
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          OSF2017/015607
MEMBER:Stephen Conwell
DATE:6 June 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the visa applicants Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas.

Statement made on 06 June 2022 at 3:24pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa – Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) – false or misleading information and bogus document provided in visa application – death certificates and burial permits of applicants’ parents obtained by sponsor’s sister/applicants’ aunt – integrity checks – consecutive certificate numbers for deaths a year apart – signature of medical director varies significantly between documents, and name spelled differently – letter purportedly from medical director does not address issues – reasonable suspicion that documents bogus required, not probative evidence – no compassionate or compelling circumstances to waive requirements – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1)(b), 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 117.223, Schedule 4, criterion 4020(1)
CASES
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184
Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 January 2021 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicants applied for the visas on 11 October 2017. At that time, Class AH contained three subclasses: Subclass 101 (Child), Subclass 102 (Adoption) and Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative). In this case, claims have been made in respect of the Subclass 117 visa.
The criteria for a Subclass 117 visa are set out in Part 117 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl.117.223 which requires that the visa applicant meet Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) for the grant of the visa
The delegate refused to grant the visas because the visa applicants did not meet cl 117.223 as the same delegate found in separate decisions made on 8 January 2021 that the applicants provided false and misleading information as to a relevant aspect of the application and did not satisfy Public Interest Criteria 4020 (PIC 4020). Further, the delegate was not satisfied there were reasons to waive the PIC 4020 criteria.
The review applicant (sponsor) provided a copy of the delegate’s decisions to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review.
The hearing was held during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Having regard to the nature of the review, and the objectives of the Tribunal to provide a mechanism of review that is just, fair, economical and quick, the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate that this review be conducted by way of video and telephone hearing via Microsoft Teams. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing in this manner. The parties raised no objections as to the conduct of the hearing.
The sponsor participated in the hearing by video on 26 May 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the sponsor’s sister, Ms Day Justine Lada, by telephone. Dr Maker Isaac, a medical director of the Juba Teaching Hospital was also scheduled to be witness however he did not attend the hearing. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent (representative). The representative and interpreter attended the Tribunal hearing by video.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue for determination in this case is whether the visa applicants satisfy PIC 4020 as required by cl.117.223 and if not, whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances to justify waiver of PIC 4020.
Broadly speaking, this requires that:
·      there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made: PIC 4020(1); and
·      the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2) and (2AA); and
·      the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: PIC 4020(2A); and
·      neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2B) and (2BA).
The term ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ is defined in PIC 4020(5) and the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act. In contrast to the definition of ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ in PIC 4020(5), the reference in the definition of bogus document to a document that was obtained because of a ‘false or misleading’ statement has no requirement that it be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa: Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.
The requirement in PIC 4020(1) not to provide a bogus document, or false or misleading information, applies whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant: PIC 4020(3). It also applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly.
While PIC 4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to conclude that the applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC 4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.
The requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa: PIC 4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
The delegate’s decision
The sponsor claims that the visa applicants are his twin nephews, both born on 20 May 2013. He claimed that he and the visa applicants’ mother, were siblings. The applications were made on the basis that the visa applicants’ parents, David Dissi Bringi and Dudu Justin Lada, are deceased.
In support of the applications the visa applicants provided a death certificate (S/NA 104331) for their mother, Mrs Dudu Justin Lada, issued by the Registrar for the Juba Teaching Hospital, South Sudan. The certificate indicates that the mother’s date of death was “20/05/2013” and bearing the name and signature of the Registrar, Nadia John and of the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Issac (sic). The certificate was issued on “12/06/2015”.
The visa applicants also submitted a death certificate (S/NA. 104330) for their father, Mr David Dissi Bringi, issued by the Registrar for the Juba Teaching Hospital, South Sudan. The certificate indicates that the father’s date of death was “9/04/2014” and bearing the name and signature of the Registrar, Nadia John and of the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Issac (sic). The certificate was issued on “19/04/2015”.
The Department conducted integrity checks on both death certificates, with its investigations revealing that both death certificates were fraudulently obtained. The investigations found that Nadia John is employed in the hospital’s ‘issuing office’ and she was responsible for the issuance of both death certificates. However investigations concluded that the issuance of both death certificates was not in accordance with the hospital’s genuine administrative procedures. Furthermore, the Medical Director is said to have advised the integrity officer that the signature purporting to be his on each death certificate was not his signature.
On 18 November 2020, the Department wrote to the visa applicants via their representative inviting them to comment on the evidence suggesting that they had provided bogus documents as part of their visa application, specifically relating to their parents’ death certificates.
The visa applicants were invited to comment on the information that is considered to be false or misleading or the document that is considered to be bogus, and asked whether there were any compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, to justify the waiver of PIC 4020.
By email of 17 December 2020, the sponsor’s representative provided the following response, which appears in the decision record:
I have been instructed by Faiz Justin Lada BARO (hereinafter referred to as sponsor ) to respond to the Invitation above as following:
The Sponsor explained that the letters issued by Juba Teaching Hospital (Hospital) on 5 March 2018 (Letters) were obtained legitimately.
He also explained that the Letters were obtained from the Hospital by his blood sister Ms Day Justin Lada who lives in Juba.
After the Department of Home Affairs informed him that the signature and the issue process of the Letters were not genuine he asked Day to find out with the Hospital about what happened there in this regards.
Also, the Sponsor will question Day in the next few days about what happened in the Hospital and he will provide a detailed report to you next week.
Due to COVID 19 it also takes longer time to get information from the Hospital.
Due to the reasons above the Sponsor is asking the Department to provide him one more week of time to complete written response to the Invitation where all the details regarding how the Letters were obtained and what happened in the Hospital will be provided.
No further response was received by Department within time-frame allowed, nor was any further response received by the time of the delegate’s decision on 8 January 2021.
The delegate decided that the death certificates were each a bogus document provided by the visa applicants in support of their application. The delegate found there were no compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia or any compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen that would justify the grant of this visa.
Information provided prior to the hearing
Prior to the hearing the sponsor provided:
·       a written submission from the applicants’ representative dated 18 May 2022.
·      a scanned copy of the death certificate and burial permit (as one document) for the applicants’ mother, Dudu Justin Lada (S/NA 104331). The back of the document has been stamped and certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Sudan.
·      a scanned copy of the death certificate and burial permit (as one document) for the applicants’ father, David Dissi Bringi (S/NA 104331) (sic). The back of the document has been stamped and certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Sudan.
·      two identical letters each dated 5 March 2018 (one pertaining to the applicants’ mother, the other to the applicants’ father). The letters are written on Juba Teaching Hospital letterhead and signed by Dr Maker Isaac, Medical Director of the hospital.
·      One letter dated 5 March 2018 seeks to confirm the details of the death certificate and burial permit for the applicants’ mother, Dudu Justin Lada (S/NA 104331):
“Regarding the above certificate S/NA 104331, issued 12/06/2015. It has been checked up again and admitted that was error writing on buried date 12/06/2015 but the actual correct buried date was 21/05/2013.”
·      The other letter dated 5 March 2018 seeks to confirm the details of the death certificate and burial permit for the applicants’ father, David Dissi Bringi (S/NA 104331) (sic):
“Regarding the above certificate S/NA 104331 (sic), issued 19/04/2015. It has been checked up again and admitted that was error writing on buried date 19/04/2015 but the actual correct buried date was 10/04/2014.”
·      Both letters share the same date, are on the hospital letterhead and are signed by Dr Maker Isaac, Medical Director, Juba Teaching Hospital.
·      Two further letters both dated 25 February 2021 are on the same hospital letterhead and are both signed by Dr Maker Isaac Wel, Medical Director, Juba Teaching Hospital. were also included in the representative’s submission.
·      The letter dated 25 February 2021 pertaining to the applicants’ mother, Dudu Justin Lada, states:
“this is to certify that the above mentioned details is (sic) from the office of the Medical Director’s office regarding the above certificate S/NA 104331, issued on 12/06/2015, but the actual correct buried date was 21/05/2013.”
·      The letter dated 25 February 2021 pertaining to the applicants’ father, David Dissi Bringi, states:
“this is to certify that the above mentioned details is (sic) from the office of the Medical Director’s office regarding the above certificate S/NA 104331 (sic):, issued on 19/04/2015 but the actual correct buried date was 10/04/2014.”
At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal was informed that Dr Maker Isaac, Medical Director of Juba Teaching Hospital, had intended to be available by telephone as a witness, however he was no longer available to attend.
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in material particular?
The Tribunal noted that the issue before the Department and now before the Tribunal concerned the authenticity of the death certificates and burial permits of the visa applicants’ parents. The Tribunal explained that the issue is whether the visa applicants satisfy PIC 4020 as required by cl.117.223 and if not, whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances to justify waiver of PIC 4020.
The witness, Ms Day Justine Lada (the sponsor’s sister) told the Tribunal that she was directly involved in arranging the burials of both parents and that she had personally attended at the hospital to obtain the death certificates and burial permits on the death of each parent. In response to direct questions from the Tribunal the witness denied knowing either of the signatories to these documents, the Registrar, Nadia John and the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Isaac. She also denied that she or either of the twin applicants were related to either of these people.
s.359AA
The Tribunal put information to the sponsor using the s.359AA procedure. The Tribunal informed the sponsor that it wished to put information to him that it would consider being the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision. The Tribunal explained the relevance and the consequences of the information to the sponsor and invited the sponsor to comment on or to respond to the information. The sponsor was informed that he may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information. The sponsor did not seek additional time to comment, requesting that the Tribunal disclose the information in order that he may respond immediately.
The Tribunal put to the sponsor that the Department file contained notes of interviews conducted by a Departmental Integrity Officer on 15 April 2019 of staff at the Juba Teaching Hospital, including the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Isaac and staff within its ‘issuing office’ (of documents’). In summary, the interviewees offered the following information:
·      that burial permits are not issued for deaths which are registered more than 12 months after the date of death;
·      the hospital does not issue burial permits for deaths which did not take place within the hospital;
·      Dr Maker Isaac confirmed to the Integrity Officer that he had not signed any of the relevant death certificates or burial permits, therefore the signature appearing on each of these documents, purporting to be his, must be non-genuine.
The sponsor told the Tribunal that as he is an Australian citizen and an honest man. Since he is in Australia, all he has done is rely upon his family in South Sudan to obtain the relevant death certificates or burial permits and he had no reason to question the authenticity of these documents. The sponsor denied knowing either of the signatories to these documents, the Registrar, Nadia John and the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Isaac. He also denied that he or either of the twin applicants were related to either of these people.
Death certificate and burial permit for the applicants’ mother, Dudu Justin Lada (S/NA 104331)
As previously noted, the mother’s death certificate and burial permit bear the same serial number, 104331. Both documents record the mother’s date of death as being 20/05/2013; both documents bear the name and signature of the Registrar, Nadia John and of the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Issac (sic). Both documents were issued on 12/06/2015.
The Tribunal notes that even on a cursory inspection, the Medical Officer’s signature on the burial permit appears to be markedly different to the Medical Officer’s signature on the death certificate. Moreover, in the burial permit, the ‘Issuing Officer’ is recorded to be “Dr Maker”, with no surname. Yet, it is submitted that he signed the burial permit as ‘Medical Officer’. If that is so, then this signature is very different to the Medical Officer’s signature on the death certificate. Furthermore the Medical Officer’s name on the death certificate is written as ‘Dr Maker Issac’ (with a double ‘s’), rather than simply as ‘Dr Maker’.
Death certificate and burial permit for the applicants’ father, David Dissi Bringi (S/NA 104331)
The Tribunal’s observations apply equally to the father’s death certificate and burial permit. Both documents record the father’s date of death as being 9/04/2014, some 11 months after the mother’s death. Both documents pertaining to the father’s death bear the same serial number, 104330, which is immediately before the serial number of the mother’s documents. The Tribunal finds this a curious oddity, since the father is said to have died almost a year after the mother. Both documents bear the name and signature of the Registrar, Nadia John and of the Medical Officer, Dr Maker Issac (sic). Both documents were issued on 19/04/2015.
The Tribunal once again notes that the Medical Officer’s signature on the burial permit appears to be markedly different to the Medical Officer’s signature on the death certificate. Once again, in the burial permit, the ‘Issuing Officer’ is recorded to be “Dr Maker”, with no surname. Once again the Medical Officer’s name on the death certificate is written as ‘Dr Maker Issac’ (with a double ‘s’), rather than simply as ‘Dr Maker’.

The Tribunal’s further observes that the signatory as Medical Officer on both burial permits appears to be the same person, however the signatory as Medical Officer on each death certificates appear to be different people, as the signatures are not identical or even similar. Yet it is submitted that the Medical Officer who signed all four documents was the one person, ‘Dr Maker Issac’.
Of further concern to the Tribunal are the two letters dated 5 March 2018 purportedly signed by the Medical Officer, ‘Dr Maker Isaac’. Firstly the signature in one letter is not identical or even similar to, the signature in the other letter. Secondly, the typed name of the signatory in each letter is written thusly, ‘Dr Maker Isaac’, i.e. in the traditional spelling of ‘Isaac’ with a single ‘s’.
Turning to the two letters dated 25 February 2021, the Tribunal observes that the signatory of both letters appears to be the same person. Again, the signatory of both 2021 letters is purportedly the Medical Officer, ‘Dr Maker Isaac’. Whilst the signature of both 2021 letters appear to be similar enough to have been signed by the same person, they are very different to the signatures on both 2018 letters. Furthermore, the typed name of the signatory in each 2021 letter is written thusly, ‘Dr Maker Isaac Wel’.
No explanation has been offered to the Tribunal regarding these discrepancies within or between (a) each burial permit and its corresponding death certificate; (b) the Medical Officer’s signature on the two death certificates; (c) the dissimilar signatures on the 2018 and 2021 letters; (d) the Medical Officer’s name and its spelling across all of these documents.
Extension of time granted
During the hearing the Tribunal heard testimony from the sponsor and his sister, Ms Day Justine Lada. As Dr Maker Isaac was said to be unavailable, the Tribunal granted the sponsor a further seven days from the hearing date in which to submit further evidence, in particular from Dr Maker Isaac. The Tribunal mentioned that if further time was required, a request could be made before expiry of the time extension, which the Tribunal would consider. The sponsor stated that he would seek to contact Dr Maker Isaac to request a further statement from him.
The Tribunal received by email of 31 May 2022 (within the time extension allowed) a further letter dated 27 May 2022, on Juba Teaching Hospital letterhead and purportedly signed again by Dr Maker Isaac Wel,
To Whom It May Concern
Subject: Clear Conformation about my two Signatures
This is to certify you that those two Death Certificates & Burial Permits in the name of Dudu Justin Lada & David Disi Bringi dated 25th Feb. 2021, all are signed by me and as well as for the Death Certificates dated 19th April 2015, also signed by me.
They are not fake certificates although different signatures but all are rny signatures.
NB: I apologize d for the time you called me at midnight that I was very sick and couldn't communicate to you; all Certificates are signed by me official.
Thanks for your usual cooperation.
This letter dated 27 May 2022 is stamped and certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Sudan, however it does nothing to allay the Tribunal’s concerns as to the authenticity of the original death certificates and burial permits. Firstly the relevant documents pertaining to the applicants’ father were issued on 12 June 2015, whilst the documents pertaining to the applicants’ mother were issued on 19 April 2015. The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that the Medical Director who claims to have signed all of these relevant documents would confuse the letters that he purportedly signed and issued on 25 February 2021 with the original death certificates and burial permits that were signed and issued in 2015.
Furthermore, none of the Tribunal’s other concerns regarding the discrepancies in the signatures of the Medical Director across the relevant documents and letters, the different spellings of his name, and the fact that relevant documents have consecutive serial numbers, despite the father dying a year before the mother’s death, are adequately addressed in this recent letter or in any other submission.
In the absence of any plausible explanation from the sponsor or any other party, the Tribunal must give greater weight to the findings and observations of the Department’s Integrity Officer based upon the interviews conducted at the hospital in April 2019.
The Tribunal accepts the sponsor’s evidence that he had no reason to question the authenticity of the death certificates and burial permits, however, as noted, PIC 4020 applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to determine that the visa applicants or sponsor were involved in obtaining the bogus documents or that they provided that documents knowingly.
To meet the definition of bogus document, there need only be a reasonable suspicion of a document being bogus, not probative evidence. The Department’s verification process assessed the death certificate provided as counterfeit. The Tribunal has considered the sponsor’s response to the natural justice letter, the representative’s written submission of 18 May 2022 and the oral testimony provided at hearing, however it attaches significant weight to the outcome of the Department’s verification process. Accordingly, the Tribunal reasonably suspects that the original death certificates and burial permits are counterfeit and finds that one or more of them to be a bogus document within the definition of s.5(1)(b) of the Act.
The Tribunal notes the death certificates and burial permits which the Department found to be bogus documents were submitted by the sponsor. The Tribunal is satisfied however that an agency relationship clearly exists between the visa applicants who are all minors and the sponsor who is their uncle. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicants did cause the bogus document to be given because of the agency relationship. The visa applicants submitted the documents when applying for Orphan Relative visas and the Tribunal finds that there is evidence that the visa applicants have given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document.
For this reason, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicants meet the requirements of PIC 4020(1).
Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?
The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in r.1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
There are no submissions before the Tribunal regarding whether the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) should be waived. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and is not satisfied that there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia to justify the grant of the visa in the present case.
The Tribunal turns to consider the remaining circumstances for waiver. The sponsor is an Australian citizen. Accordingly, the question that arises is whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect his interests if the requirement to meet PIC 4020(1) is not waived.
The expressions ‘compelling circumstances’ and ‘compassionate or compelling circumstances’ are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of ‘compassionate’ relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.
The Tribunal is required to consider all the circumstances of the case including any matters put forward by an applicant and determine on the evidence whether there are compelling and/or compassionate circumstances justifying the granting of the visa.
The sponsor at the hearing that he is the applicants’ maternal uncle and feels a responsibility to them as if they were his own children and wishes to raise them as such. He continues to support them financially and emotionally. Whilst no evidence was submitted in respect of the possible waiver of PIC 4020(1), the Tribunal accept that the sponsor is the applicants’ uncle and that he has genuine concerns for their well-being.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the sponsor wants the visa applicants to join him in Australia. While sympathetic to the sponsor’s circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the use of the words ‘compelling’ and ‘compassionate’ in the Regulations indicate a degree of gravity that is not demonstrated in the evidence before it. The provision of a bogus document to the Department is a serious matter and on balance the Tribunal is not persuaded that there are circumstances in this case that affect an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, either on an individual or cumulative basis, that are of a compelling or compassionate nature that justify the waiver of PIC 4020. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements should be waived.
Therefore, the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should not be waived.
On the basis of the above, the visa applicants do not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 117.223.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal, and no claims have been made, in respect of the other visa subclasses in Class AH (Subclass 101 and Subclass 102).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the visa applicants Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas.
Stephen Conwell
Member
ATTACHMENT – RELEVANT LAW
Migration Regulations 1994
1.14Orphan relative
An applicant for a visa is an orphan relative of another person who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen if:
(a)the applicant:
(i)has not turned 18; and
(ii)does not have a spouse or de facto partner; and
(iii)is a relative of that other person; and
(b)the applicant cannot be cared for by either parent because each of them is either dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts; and
(c)there is no compelling reason to believe that the grant of a visa would not be in the best interests of the applicant.

[2022] AATA 1807

6 June 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice