Ima (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to refuse a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309, to a secondary applicant. The primary applicant, Mrs Shahana Afroz, and her youngest daughter had been granted visas, but the visa applicant in this review, Mrs Afroz's older daughter, was refused because she was not considered a ‘member of the family unit’ at the time of the decision. The visa applicant was a national of Bangladesh, born in June 1999, and thus over 23 years of age at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant qualified as a ‘member of the family unit’ of Mrs Afroz, the ‘family head’, under regulation 1.12 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the visa applicant, being over 23 years of age, met the dependency requirements stipulated in regulation 1.12(2)(b)(iii) and regulation 1.05A(1)(b).

The Tribunal reasoned that for a person over 23 years of age to be considered a member of the family unit, they must be wholly or substantially reliant on the family head for financial support due to an incapacity for work resulting from the total or partial loss of bodily or mental functions. While the review applicant stated the visa applicant was financially dependent and studying, there was no claim or evidence presented to demonstrate that the visa applicant was incapacitated for work due to such a loss of bodily or mental functions. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant did not meet the criteria under regulation 1.05A(1)(b).

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Partner (Provisional) visa to the applicant, concluding that she was not a ‘member of the family unit’ as defined by the Migration Regulations.