FU (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the review applicant, the mother of the visa applicant, against the decision not to grant her daughter a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101. The visa applicant, born in 1991, was a Chinese citizen residing with her grandmother and studying at a technical school. The review applicant, her mother, was an Australian permanent resident who had previously advised her daughter was an independent child. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on her mother for financial support for her basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter at the time of the visa application and at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the visa applicant met the definition of a "dependent child" as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the visa applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on the review applicant for financial support for her basic needs, and whether this reliance was greater than any reliance on other sources of support. This assessment needed to be made at both the time of application and the time of the decision, with specific exceptions for age-related changes.

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not satisfy the criteria for a dependent child. While the visa applicant initially stated her mother provided her with weekly financial support, subsequent information indicated that her living expenses were being met by her maternal uncle, who was providing her with accommodation and cash for daily needs. An agreement between the review applicant and her brother to repay the uncle was considered by the Tribunal to be lacking in specificity and likely created for the proceedings, thus carrying little weight. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the review applicant's oral evidence compared to information previously provided to the Department and the Tribunal, and found her responses to concerns raised under s.359AA of the Act to be inadequate.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, as the criteria for a dependent child were not met. No claims were advanced in respect of other visa subclasses within Class AH.