Kamara (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (subclass 309). The primary applicant, Mr Musa, was the sponsor's husband. Ms Bangura claimed to be Mr Musa's niece, and Miss Koroma claimed to be Ms Bangura's daughter. The dispute centred on whether Ms Bangura and Miss Koroma qualified as members of Mr Musa's family unit under the Migration Regulations 1994. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the evidence regarding customary adoption, fostering, and guardianship arrangements in Sierra Leone.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Bangura and Miss Koroma met the definition of "member of the family unit" as provided by regulation 1.12(1) of the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether Ms Bangura was a "child or step-child" of Mr Musa, or a dependent relative, and consequently, whether Miss Koroma qualified as a dependent child or grandchild. The Tribunal also considered the meaning of "dependent" under regulation 1.05A.

The Tribunal found that while Ms Bangura had been dependent on Mr Musa for a substantial period, and Miss Koroma was dependent on Ms Bangura, the evidence did not establish that Ms Bangura was Mr Musa's child or step-child. The Tribunal noted that Mr Musa had been adopted into Ms Bangura's family as a child, but this did not establish the reverse relationship. Consequently, Miss Koroma could not be considered Mr Musa's grandchild.

In relation to Ms Bangura, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that she met the criteria for a subclass 309 visa. However, in relation to Miss Koroma, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, as she did not satisfy the definition of a member of the family unit.