Haynes (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa application, specifically Subclass 820. The primary applicant sought to have the visa granted, and the second applicant, a dependent child of the primary applicant, was included in the application. The delegate had previously refused to grant the visa, finding that the requirements relating to the consent for migration of the dependent child were not met.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the criteria set out in subclauses 820.225, PIC 4015, and PIC 4016 of the Migration Regulations 1994 were satisfied in relation to the dependent child. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the laws of the child's home country permitted their migration, or if each person with the legal right to determine the child's residence consented to the visa grant, and whether granting the visa was in the child's best interests.

The Tribunal considered additional evidence provided by the applicant, including a completed Form 1229 (Application for a visa for a child under 18), the biological father's passport, and the child's birth certificate. The Tribunal found that the second applicant was indeed the child of the primary applicant, was under 18, and was a member of the family unit who had made a combined application. The Tribunal accepted that the Form 1229, signed by both the primary applicant and the child's father, constituted sufficient consent for the grant of the visa, with the father's identity being verified by his passport.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas to the Minister. The remittal was with a direction that the first named applicant met the criteria under cl.820.225. However, the Tribunal directed that the Minister reconsider the remaining criteria for the grant of the visa in relation to the secondary applicant.