DAIGDIGAN (Migration)

The applicant, Daigdigian, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of her application for an Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa, Subclass 116 (Carer). The AAT had found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning the provision of care by others in Australia and the family's financial commitments.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's eligibility for the Subclass 116 visa. This involved determining whether the AAT had properly considered the evidence regarding the availability of care from other family members in Australia, the financial capacity of the applicant's family to meet their commitments, and the absence of an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) assessment.

Her Honour Judge Claringbold found that the AAT had not erred in law. The Tribunal had correctly considered the combination of assistance from family members and the availability of home care packages as insufficient to meet the visa requirements, particularly in the absence of a formal ACAT assessment. The AAT's reasoning, which focused on the specific criteria of the visa and the evidence presented, was found to be sound and legally defensible. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.