Namanda (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the decision not to grant them an Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa, specifically a Subclass 115 Remaining Relative visa. The applicant claimed to be a remaining relative of their sister, who was an Australian permanent resident. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for a "remaining relative" under the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicant satisfied the requirements of Regulation 1.15 of the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly concerning the definition of a "remaining relative" and the absence of "near relatives" offshore. This involved determining if the applicant, along with their spouse or de facto partner, had any near relatives other than those who were usually resident in Australia and held Australian citizenship, permanent residency, or were eligible New Zealand citizens.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. The applicant's sister was an Australian permanent resident and thus an "Australian relative" for the purposes of the visa. However, Regulation 1.15(1)(c) requires that the applicant have no "near relatives" other than those who are usually resident in Australia and are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens. The applicant admitted to having parents and four siblings living in Uganda at the time of the application. Even considering the sponsor's later statement that the applicant's father had passed away and the mother was living in Kenya, the applicant still had siblings residing in Uganda, who were considered "near relatives" under Regulation 1.15(2). As these near relatives were not usually resident in Australia and did not hold Australian citizenship or permanent residency, the applicant failed to satisfy this crucial criterion.