Croning (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Sponsored Family stream). The applicants sought to visit family in Australia, and the appeal focused on whether the sponsor met the criteria for sponsorship and whether the applicants were related to the sponsor. The Tribunal also had to consider its jurisdiction in relation to one of the applicants.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicants satisfied the requirements of clause 600.232 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the sponsor was a "settled" Australian citizen and a "relative" of the visa applicants. The Tribunal also had to determine its jurisdiction concerning the third applicant.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "settled" in regulation 1.03, which requires lawful residence in Australia for a reasonable period, and applied departmental policy that generally considers two years of lawful residence sufficient, with specific provisions for periods spent outside Australia. The Tribunal found the sponsor, an Australian citizen since 1993, had not departed Australia since 2014 and therefore met the "settled" requirement. Regarding the definition of "relative," the Tribunal noted that for this visa subclass, it included "close relatives" and a list of other specified relationships. As the sponsor claimed the applicants were his brother and sister-in-law, they would be considered close relatives under regulation 1.03.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for the first and second named applicants for reconsideration, with a direction that they meet the criteria for a Subclass 600 visa under clause 600.232. The Tribunal also determined it did not have jurisdiction in relation to the third named applicant.