Norris (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, specifically a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa. The applicant sought to establish that they were a remaining relative of an Australian citizen, Mr Gregory Ivan Norris, who is the applicant's parent. The decision was made by P. Maishman.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a "remaining relative" under the Migration Regulations 1994, and specifically whether the Australian relative, Mr Norris, was "usually resident in Australia" and whether the applicant had any "near relatives" outside of Australia who were not Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens. The Tribunal was required to consider the definitions of "Australian relative" and "remaining relative" as set out in the Regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Norris, being the applicant's parent and an Australian citizen, met the requirement of being an "Australian relative". The Tribunal applied established legal principles regarding "usual residence", which require consideration of both physical residency and intention, drawing on cases such as *Scargill v MIMIA* and *MIMIA v Hidalgo*. Movement records indicated that Mr Norris was usually resident in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria under cl.835.212 and cl.835.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant had met the specified criteria for the Subclass 835 visa.