Krstevska (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether Darko Krstevski qualified as a "dependent child" for the purposes of an Extended Eligibility (Temporary) (Class TK) visa, specifically a Subclass 445 visa. The applicant, Darko, sought this visa as the dependent child of Mr Krstevski, who held a Subclass 820 visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Darko met the regulatory definition of a dependent child at the time of his visa application and at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Darko was a dependent child of Mr Krstevski, as defined by Regulation 1.03 and elaborated by Regulation 1.05A. This involved assessing whether Darko was, and had been for a substantial period, wholly or substantially reliant on Mr Krstevski for financial support to meet his basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Crucially, the Tribunal had to consider whether this reliance on Mr Krstevski was greater than any reliance Darko had on any other person or source of support.

The Tribunal found the evidence presented regarding Darko's financial dependence to be vague and contradictory. While Darko asserted that his mother's income was insufficient to support him, given her expenses and his own university costs, textbooks, travel, and social life, he also stated that she provided him with shelter. He further indicated that he withdrew an average of $A700 per month from his parents' bank accounts, in addition to child support payments for his sister, and received gifts and holiday money from his father. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Darko was wholly or substantially reliant on Mr Krstevski for financial support to meet his basic needs, nor that this reliance was greater than any other support he received.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Darko Krstevski the Subclass 445 visa, concluding that he did not meet the definition of a dependent child.