Chen (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 101 (Child) visa by WC, who was the son of the review applicant, YC. The central dispute revolved around whether WC qualified as a "dependent child" of YC for the purposes of the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly given WC was over 18 years of age at the time of the visa application. The decision was made by Margie Bourke, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether WC was the dependent child of YC within the meaning of regulations 1.03 and 1.05A for the purpose of clause 101.211 of the Migration Regulations. Secondly, if WC was found to be a dependent child, whether he met the additional requirements for visa applicants aged over 18 years as stipulated in clause 101.213.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It found that while YC had paid a lump sum of 180,000 RMB to WC's mother as part of a divorce settlement in 2011, which was intended to cover WC's living and study costs, this did not establish that WC was "dependent" on YC at the time of the visa application in June 2016. The Tribunal noted that YC had left China in 1998, had never met WC in person, and the divorce settlement was a one-off payment intended to resolve all financial obligations. The definition of "dependent" in regulation 1.05A requires a substantial period of reliance on financial support for basic needs, with that reliance being greater than any other source of support. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances did not demonstrate this ongoing, substantial reliance by WC on YC. Consequently, the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 101 visa were not met.