Bledee Junior (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, by Phartimah, with Mr Bledee identified as the sponsor. The core dispute revolved around whether Phartimah was the biological child of Mr Bledee or had been adopted by him under circumstances that would satisfy the visa requirements. The decision was made by Kate Millar, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Phartimah met the criteria for a dependent child under clause 101.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the existence of a relevant child-parent relationship. This required determining if Phartimah was the biological child, an adopted child, or a step-child of Mr Bledee, and whether the adoption, if any, occurred at a time when Mr Bledee was not an Australian citizen or permanent resident but later became one.

The Tribunal considered evidence including DNA test results, which indicated a 0% probability of Mr Bledee being Phartimah's biological father. Mr Bledee contended that his inclusion on the birth certificate, his financial and moral support, and the sociological concept of family should be given weight, arguing that family is not solely a biological construct. He also referred to international human rights instruments concerning family reunification. However, the Tribunal noted that the visa criteria specifically require a biological or legally recognised adoption or step-child relationship, and the DNA evidence directly contradicted the claim of biological parentage. The Tribunal also noted that Phartimah did not claim to meet the requirements for a Subclass 102 or Subclass 117 visa.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Phartimah the Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria, particularly in relation to establishing the required child-parent relationship as defined by the regulations.