Kaur (Migration)

The applicant, Ms Kaur, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse her application for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa. The visa was sponsored by her son, who was an Australian citizen. The primary issue before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was whether Ms Kaur qualified as a ‘remaining relative’ of an ‘Australian relative’ for the purposes of the visa subclass.

The court was required to determine the correct interpretation of the term ‘Australian relative’ as defined in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and whether the applicant’s son, as the sponsor, fell within that definition. Specifically, the court had to consider if a child could be considered an ‘Australian relative’ in the context of the Remaining Relative visa requirements.

In her reasoning, Judge Holub applied the plain meaning of the relevant legislative provisions. The court found that the definition of ‘Australian relative’ in the Migration Regulations did not include the sponsor’s children. Consequently, as the sponsor was the applicant’s child, he did not meet the criteria of being an ‘Australian relative’ as required for the Subclass 835 visa. The court therefore affirmed the Minister’s decision to refuse the visa application.