Lai (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, who was a secondary applicant as a dependent child. The primary applicant was the applicant's mother. The central dispute was whether the applicant, who was 18 years old at the time of the application and working part-time, met the criteria for dependency on her mother as required by the Migration Regulations.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a dependent child of the primary applicant at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision, as defined by the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the meaning of "dependent" under Regulation 1.05A, which requires a substantial period of reliance for financial support for basic needs, and whether the applicant's part-time employment and full-time secondary student status satisfied this criterion.

The Tribunal noted that Regulation 1.05A(a) requires a person to be wholly or substantially reliant on another for financial support for basic needs for a substantial period immediately before the time it is necessary to establish dependency. While departmental guidelines interpret "substantial period" as usually at least 12 months, the Tribunal is not bound by these guidelines and must consider the individual circumstances. The applicant was invited to provide information demonstrating dependency but failed to respond. Given the applicant's age, part-time work, and lack of evidence of continued tertiary study or ongoing substantial reliance for basic needs, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the dependency criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated that she was a dependent child of the primary applicant at the relevant times.