Edano (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the review applicant against a decision to refuse Visitor (Class FA) visas, Subclass 600, for two visa applicants who were under 18 years of age. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicants met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4017, specifically concerning consent for the grant of the visa. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the visa applicants satisfied the requirements of PIC 4017. The delegate had refused the visas on the basis that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that each person who could lawfully determine where they lived consented to the grant of the visas. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented to ascertain if the consent requirement under PIC 4017(b) had been met.

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including birth certificates, baptism certificates, an affidavit for delayed registration of birth, an acknowledgement of paternity, and Form 1229 consent forms. It also noted the death certificate of the visa applicants' father. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal found that the review applicant was the only person who could lawfully determine where the visa applicants lived. The Tribunal was satisfied that the review applicant had provided consent to the grant of the visas. Consequently, the Tribunal found that PIC 4017(b) and, therefore, PIC 4017 as a whole, were satisfied.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Visitor (Class FA) visas, Subclass 600, for reconsideration. The direction was that the visa applicants met the criteria for the visas, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4017 for the purposes of clause 600.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.