Miesso (Migration)

This matter concerned a visa applicant born in Ethiopia in 2002, who sought a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa. The sponsor, who was born in 1974, had become an Australian citizen in 2015. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant was the child or adopted child of the sponsor, as required by the criteria for the relevant visa subclasses.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria for either a Subclass 101 (Child) visa or a Subclass 102 (Adoption) visa, as no claims were made for an Orphan Relative visa. Specifically, for a Subclass 101 visa, the applicant needed to be a dependent child of an Australian citizen, permanent visa holder, or eligible New Zealand citizen. The applicant also had to be the child (other than an adopted child) or a specific type of step-child of that sponsor, or have been adopted overseas by a person who later became an Australian citizen, permanent visa holder, or eligible New Zealand citizen. The definition of "child" under section 5CA of the Act, which acknowledges broader parent-child relationships beyond biological links, was relevant to this determination.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence presented to satisfy the criteria for an Orphan Relative visa. While the sponsor had declared having four children from other relationships, and three of these children had migrated to Australia in 2017, the provided text does not detail the specific evidence or reasoning concerning the applicant's relationship to the sponsor for the Subclass 101 or 102 visas. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.