Boonrin (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas, specifically the Subclass 836 (Carer) visa. The review applicants sought judicial review of a second decision by the Department of Home Affairs, following a previous remittal by the Tribunal on other grounds. The core dispute revolved around whether the first named visa applicant met the definition of a "carer" under regulation 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether the second named visa applicant met the secondary criteria for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the first named review applicant qualified as a carer of an Australian resident, as defined by regulation 1.15AA(1)(a) and (b). This involved assessing whether the applicant was a relative of the Australian resident, and whether a person (either the resident or a member of their family unit) had a medical condition causing physical, intellectual, or sensory impairment requiring direct assistance. The Tribunal also needed to consider if the Australian resident had a long-term need for assistance, if such assistance could not be reasonably provided by other means, and if the applicant was willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance.

The Tribunal found that the first named review applicant was a step grandson of the Australian relative, satisfying the "relative" requirement under regulation 1.15AA(1)(a) and regulation 1.03. The Tribunal concluded that the applications should be remitted for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the first named review applicant met the criteria under clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and the second named review applicant met the requirement under regulation 1.12(2)(a) for the purposes of clause 836.321.