Menzalji (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1929
•10 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Menzalji (Migration) [2018] AATA 1929
[2018] AATA 1929
10 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal to grant Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visas, specifically the Subclass 116 (Carer) visa. The visa applicant claimed to be a carer for his Australian citizen father, the sponsor, who had an impairment rating of 50 and required assistance with various daily activities. The core dispute revolved around whether the necessary care could reasonably be provided by other family members residing in Australia or obtained through Australian welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the requirements of regulations 1.15AA(e)(i) and 1.15AA(e)(ii) were satisfied. These regulations stipulate that assistance cannot reasonably be provided by another relative who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, nor can it be reasonably obtained from Australian welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services. The Tribunal considered whether the sponsor's several adult children and ten grandchildren in Australia could collectively provide the required care, and whether such care could be sourced from available community services.
The Tribunal reasoned that while cultural obligations to care for parents were acknowledged, the sponsor's family in Australia was capable of collectively providing the necessary assistance. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the sponsor could not reasonably obtain the required support from welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services available in Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 116 visa, specifically clause 116.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
As a result of these findings, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicants the Subclass 116 (Carer) visas. The Tribunal also noted that no claims or evidence were presented to suggest the visa applicants met the requirements for any other subclasses within the Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa category.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the requirements of regulations 1.15AA(e)(i) and 1.15AA(e)(ii) were satisfied. These regulations stipulate that assistance cannot reasonably be provided by another relative who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, nor can it be reasonably obtained from Australian welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services. The Tribunal considered whether the sponsor's several adult children and ten grandchildren in Australia could collectively provide the required care, and whether such care could be sourced from available community services.
The Tribunal reasoned that while cultural obligations to care for parents were acknowledged, the sponsor's family in Australia was capable of collectively providing the necessary assistance. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the sponsor could not reasonably obtain the required support from welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services available in Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 116 visa, specifically clause 116.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
As a result of these findings, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicants the Subclass 116 (Carer) visas. The Tribunal also noted that no claims or evidence were presented to suggest the visa applicants met the requirements for any other subclasses within the Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa category.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Menzalji (Migration) [2018] AATA 1929
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Anveel v MIBP
[2013] FCCA 2181
Jajo v MIBP
[2013] FCCA 1554