Chamesedine (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, specifically a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa. The applicant sought to be recognised as a carer for a person who had a medical condition. The central dispute revolved around whether the medical condition of the person requiring care met the threshold set out in Regulation 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994, which defines a "carer" for visa purposes. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the person with the medical condition had been assigned an impairment rating of at least 30, as required by a Carer Visa Assessment Certificate (CVAC), and consequently, whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a Subclass 836 visa under Regulation 1.15AA. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the application could be treated as an application for an Aged Dependent Relative visa, given a change in circumstances, and whether the correct application fee had been paid for such a visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a person to be considered a carer under Regulation 1.15AA, the medical condition of the person requiring care must result in a physical, intellectual, or sensory impairment that has been assigned a rating of at least 30 under the Impairment Tables. The evidence presented indicated that the CVAC assessed the impairment rating at 20, which fell below the required minimum of 30. Therefore, the criterion under clause 836.221 was not met. Regarding the request to consider the application as an Aged Dependent Relative visa, the Tribunal noted that while both subclasses fall within the same visa class, they attract different application fees. As the applicant had paid the fee for a Carer visa and not the higher fee for an Aged Dependent Relative visa, the application for the latter was deemed invalid.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 836 visa, as the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria. The Tribunal also declined to seek Ministerial Intervention but encouraged the applicant to bring the matter directly to the Minister.