Hayes (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 4286
•18 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hayes (Migration) [2021] AATA 4286
[2021] AATA 4286
18 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, specifically a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa. The applicant, Mr Dale Anthony Hayes, sought this visa on the basis that he was the remaining relative of his Australian citizen mother, Ms Jean Claire Hayes. The decision was made by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 835 visa, particularly whether he qualified as a "remaining relative" under regulation 1.15 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant's Australian relative (his mother) was usually resident in Australia, and crucially, whether the applicant and his spouse had any "near relatives" who were not usually resident in Australia and were not Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's mother, Ms Jean Claire Hayes, was an Australian citizen and was usually resident in Australia, satisfying paragraphs (a) and (b) of regulation 1.15(1). However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy paragraph (c) of regulation 1.15(1). This was because the applicant had near relatives, specifically his father and other siblings, who were not usually resident in Australia and did not meet the criteria of being Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 835 visa, particularly whether he qualified as a "remaining relative" under regulation 1.15 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant's Australian relative (his mother) was usually resident in Australia, and crucially, whether the applicant and his spouse had any "near relatives" who were not usually resident in Australia and were not Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's mother, Ms Jean Claire Hayes, was an Australian citizen and was usually resident in Australia, satisfying paragraphs (a) and (b) of regulation 1.15(1). However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy paragraph (c) of regulation 1.15(1). This was because the applicant had near relatives, specifically his father and other siblings, who were not usually resident in Australia and did not meet the criteria of being Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hayes (Migration) [2021] AATA 4286
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Ignatious v MIMIA
[2004] FCA 1395
MIMIA v Hidalgo
[2005] FCAFC 192