Fred (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, made by Louisa Fred on behalf of herself and her daughter, Rita Fred. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4015 concerning her dependent daughter, specifically regarding the consent of the child's biological father for her to reside in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the requirements of PIC 4015, which necessitates evidence of consent from a non-resident parent for a child under 18 to be granted a visa to reside in Australia. The delegate had refused to grant the visa on the basis that the provided Form 1229, signed by the biological father, Houro Peter Hohola, was insufficient because it lacked accompanying identity documents to verify his signature and consent.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate's concern about verifying the identity of the signatory was understandable, the applicant had provided substantial evidence demonstrating the father's lack of involvement in the child's life and his consent for her migration. This included a prior statutory declaration from the father and the applicant's explanation of the difficulties in obtaining formal identification from him due to his living circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence, taken as a whole, satisfied the requirements of PIC 4015 for the dependent applicant and PIC 4017 for the primary applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the primary applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 820 visa and that the dependent applicant met the criteria for PIC 4015 and PIC 4017.