Kienina (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Contributory Parent (Class CA) visa (subclass 143) by two applicants born in Ukraine. The applicants had previously been granted a Contributory Parent – Temporary (subclass 173) visa and had arrived in Australia. The Department of Home Affairs had requested evidence of an Assurance of Support (AoS), but the intended sponsor, the primary applicant's son-in-law, was found to be ineligible due to not meeting the financial requirements. The applicants sought to remain in Australia despite this inability to satisfy the AoS requirement. The case was heard by Adrienne Millbank, a Member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of the subclass 143 visa, specifically concerning the mandatory requirement for an Assurance of Support. The applicants argued that they were not advised of the 10-year AoS requirement at the time of their initial application and that their sponsor could not fulfil the role due to financial constraints. They also presented evidence of their desire to remain in Australia, their lack of ties to Ukraine, and their inability to find an alternative assurer due to the onerous nature of the 10-year commitment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Assurance of Support is a mandatory legal requirement for the Contributory Parent (subclass 143) visa and that there is no provision for waiving this requirement. Consequently, failure to provide an approved AoS meant that the applicants did not satisfy a stipulated criterion for the visa. The Tribunal also noted that the secondary applicant did not meet the criterion requiring them to be a member of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 143 visa at the time of the decision.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the applicants a Contributory Parent (subclass 143) visa.