Fetaile (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for review of a decision to refuse a Subclass 838 (Aged Dependent Relative) visa. The applicant sought this visa on the basis that she was the aged dependent relative of her son, Maarouf Alameddine, an Australian citizen.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the definition of an ‘aged dependent relative’ as defined in regulation 1.03 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This definition requires, among other things, that the applicant be a ‘relative’ of an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, have no spouse or de facto partner, be old enough to receive an aged pension, and have been dependent on the Australian relative for a reasonable period and remain so dependent.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant did not meet the definition of an ‘aged dependent relative’. While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a ‘relative’ of an Australian citizen and was of an age to qualify for an aged pension, it found that the applicant was not wholly or even substantially reliant on her son. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s son had raised concerns about the applicant’s understanding of the proceedings due to the interpreter's dialect, but the applicant herself confirmed her understanding and did not raise this as an issue. The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s considered answers to its questions suggested she understood the issues. Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the crucial element of dependence was not established.