Hao (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding an application for a Parent (Migrant) (Class AX) visa, Subclass 103. The primary visa applicant sought to establish that they were the parent of a settled Australian citizen, as required by the relevant migration regulations. The sponsor, an Australian citizen, was residing and working in China at the time of the application and decision, raising questions about their settled status in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the sponsor was a "settled" Australian citizen at the time of the visa application, as stipulated by clause 103.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, and whether this criterion continued to be met at the time of the decision, pursuant to clause 103.221. The core of the dispute revolved around the sponsor's extended absence from Australia and the implications of their overseas employment and residence on their status as a "settled" Australian citizen.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered extensive documentary and oral evidence. This included the sponsor's periods of residence in Australia, her current employment as a lecturer at Tsinghua University in Beijing, her significant financial resources, and her stated intention to return to Australia. The Tribunal noted the sponsor's continued ties to Australia, including property ownership and family presence, and her active engagement in research projects aimed at facilitating her future employment in Australia. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the sponsor satisfied both clause 103.211 and clause 103.221.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Parent (Migrant) (Class AX) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the primary visa applicant met the specified criteria for a Subclass 103 (Parent) visa, specifically clauses 103.211 and 103.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.