Ferdinand (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3949

Ferdinand (Migration) [2024] AATA 3949 (17 September 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Stanliya Ferdinand

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Stanly Jeyathas

CASE NUMBER:  2307844

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/1477781

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:17 September 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 visa:

·cl 600.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 17 September 2024 at 1:03pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – settled Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident – evidence of a family relationship provided upon review – decision under review remitted          

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 600.232; r 1.20

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 2 March 2023. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 3 April 2023.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of a family relationship between a previous applicant sponsored by Stanliya Ferdinand and the applicant Stanly Jeyathas was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). At the time of the Department’s decision, a Sponsored Family Visitor Visa Subclass 600 had been granted to a previous applicant under the same sponsor and that visa was still in effect. Regulation 1.20L prevented a decision maker from approving a further Subclass 600 visa in the sponsor’s circumstances.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 September 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received evidence from the sponsor’s husband Ferdinand Chandramohan and father-in-law Sanmugam Moses Chandramohan. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil language.

4. In this case, it was required that cl.600.232 be satisfied. This clause provides:

   600.232

   (1) one of the subclauses (2) to (4) applies.

   (2) The applicant is sponsored by a settled Australian citizen, or a settled Australian permanent resident, who is at least 18 and;

   (a) a relative of the applicant; or

   (b) a relative of another applicant who is a member of the family unit of the applicant; or

   (c) a relative of another application in relation to whom the applicant is a member of the family unit.

   (3) The applicant is sponsored by a settled Australian citizen, or a settled Australian permanent resident, who:

   (a) is a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament; or

   (b) is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

   (c) Holds the office of mayor.

   (4) The applicant is sponsored by a Commonwealth government agency or instrumentality or a State or Territory government agency or instrumentality.

5. Prior to the hearing the Tribunal received evidence of the family relationship between the sponsor and the visa applicant. Based on the evidence provided, the sponsor and the visa applicant are sister and brother.

6. In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 visa:

   ·cl 600.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Wendy Banfield
   Member