OBASOHAN (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by the applicants against the refusal of their Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa applications. The applicants sought to be recognised as dependent children of the primary applicant, who was in a spousal relationship with an Australian citizen sponsor. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the definition of "dependent child" as required by the Migration Regulations.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants qualified as "members of the family unit" under regulation 1.12 and, crucially, whether they were "dependent" on the primary applicant at the time of the decision, as defined by regulation 1.05A. This required the Tribunal to determine if the applicants were wholly or substantially reliant on the primary applicant for financial support to meet their basic needs, or if they were incapacitated for work due to a loss of bodily or mental functions.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicants were the biological children of the primary applicant and were not married or in a de facto relationship, they had not provided evidence of financial dependency. The applicants were over 23 years of age and, according to the Tribunal's interpretation of regulation 1.05A, their reliance on the primary applicant was not greater than any other source of support, nor were they incapacitated for work. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not meet the definition of "dependent child" under the relevant regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants failed to satisfy the criterion of being a dependent child of the primary applicant, which was a prerequisite for meeting the secondary criteria for the visa.