Fung (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr. Fung for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, specifically Subclass 802. The applicant, who was over 24 years of age, sought to establish that he was a dependent child of an Australian relative. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Fung met the dependency requirements, particularly in light of a gap in his full-time studies and his current part-time enrolment, which he attributed to financial hardship.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 802 visa, specifically concerning his dependency on an Australian relative. This involved assessing whether the applicant's circumstances, including his educational pursuits and financial situation, demonstrated the requisite level of dependency as defined by the migration regulations. The Tribunal also noted that no claims had been advanced in respect of another visa subclass within Class BT, namely Subclass 837.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of the visa. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of financial hardship and a gap in full-time studies due to withdrawing from a course, the Tribunal concluded that these circumstances did not establish the necessary dependency. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Fung the Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa.