Ocampo (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, made by the applicant, who was 19 years old at the time of application. The applicant sought to establish that she was a "dependent child" of her sponsor, as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether she qualified as a dependent child under the relevant regulations.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant satisfied the definition of a "dependent child" as set out in regulation 1.03 and regulation 1.05A of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant was reliant on her sponsor for financial support to meet her basic needs, and whether this reliance was greater than any reliance on other sources of support, at the time the visa application was lodged. The court also considered the impact of the applicant turning 18 on the dependency requirements.

The court reasoned that for the applicant to be considered a dependent child, she needed to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, that she was relying on the sponsor for financial support to meet her basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter, and that this reliance was greater than any reliance on other sources. The applicant's own declarations and the sponsor's statutory declaration indicated a period of financial support. However, the court noted that the applicant had turned 18 and was therefore subject to the stricter criteria for dependency. Crucially, the court found that it could not be satisfied that the applicant had received the requisite financial support from the sponsor over the relevant period, particularly in light of other potential sources of support. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to attend the tribunal hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, finding that the criteria for the visa were not met.