Kalam (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mohammad Shahjahan against the decision to refuse him a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Shahjahan was a member of the family unit of his mother, Mrs Begum, or her spouse, and whether he was dependent on them at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Shahjahan met the criteria under clause 309.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether he continued to be a member of the family unit of the primary visa holder and whether he was dependent on his parents for basic needs such as food and clothing.

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Mr Shahjahan's claims regarding his financial dependence on his parents were contradicted by information obtained during a site visit, which indicated he was employed and running his own business. Local shopkeepers and his brother corroborated this, stating he had been operating a shop for approximately 10 years. While the Tribunal accepted that money was remitted to Mr Shahjahan from June 2016 and that he resided in his sponsor's flat without paying rent, it did not accept that these transactions were for his basic needs. The Tribunal concluded that these financial transfers were likely made to assist him in meeting the visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Shahjahan met the requirements for the grant of the visa. The decision under review, which refused the visa, was affirmed.