Ladu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ladu (Migration), where the review applicant, Mr Michael Yata Ladu, sought the grant of Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative), for three visa applicants. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicants met the criteria for being considered "orphan relatives" of an Australian relative, as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if each visa applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 117.211 of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that the applicant be an orphan relative of an Australian relative at the time of application and continue to meet that criterion at the time of decision, or not do so only because they have turned 18. This involved assessing whether the visa applicants met the definition of an "orphan relative" under regulation 1.14, specifically concerning their age, relationship to the Australian relative, and the circumstances of their parents.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the cumulative nature of the requirements in regulation 1.14. While the Tribunal was satisfied, based on the provided passports, nationality certificates, and the review applicant's explanation regarding his grandmother's diary, that the visa applicants had not turned 18 at the time of application or decision, it found that the crucial criterion of being an "orphan relative" was not met. This was due to inconsistencies in the family composition provided in different applications and interviews, which led the Tribunal to conclude that it could not be satisfied that the visa applicants were unable to be cared for by either parent because each of them was dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts. The absence of DNA test results or post-hearing submissions further contributed to this lack of satisfaction.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the visa applicants the Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, Subclass 117, as the criteria for the visa were not met.