Jim (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101 (Child) visa, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant and her sponsor genuinely intended to live in Australia permanently, as required by clause 101.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and Public Interest Criterion 4009.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant and her sponsor met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning their intention to reside permanently in Australia at the time of the decision. This involved assessing evidence of their commitment to establishing a life in Australia.

The Tribunal considered the sponsor's international movement records, which showed a significant period of absence from Australia despite holding a permanent visa. However, the Tribunal found that subsequent events occurring after the sponsor's return to Australia on 13 June 2019 provided strong evidence of a genuine intention to live permanently in Australia. These events included the execution of a 12-month residential tenancy agreement commencing shortly after their return, the purchase of a property in Sydney for $850,000, and the birth of their second child in North Sydney in late 2019. The Tribunal viewed these actions as indicative of the applicant and sponsor's intent to establish a permanent home and family unit in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant met the relevant criteria for the Subclass 101 (Child) visa, including clause 101.223 and Public Interest Criterion 4001.