Hussain (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, where the review applicant claimed to be the parent of the visa applicant. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant was the biological child of the review applicant and his wife, as required by the visa subclass criteria. The decision was made by Hugh Sanderson, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the visa applicant met the definition of a "child" in relation to the review applicant, specifically whether a parent-child relationship existed. This required the Tribunal to assess the evidence presented, including birth certificates and DNA test results, to ascertain the biological relationship between the parties. The Tribunal also had to consider the credibility of the documentation and the claims made by the review applicant.

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not establish the required parent-child relationship. Two different birth certificates were provided, each containing conflicting information, which the Tribunal deemed implausible and undermining of their credibility. Crucially, DNA testing excluded both the review applicant and his wife as the biological parents of the visa applicant. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the review applicant was in Australia during the period of conception, while his wife was not, further casting doubt on their claim of biological parentage. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 101 visa were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.