Olowosegun (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a sponsor against the refusal of a Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600 (Sponsored Family stream), for her sister, Mrs Daramola, and her nephew, Master Daramola. The delegate had refused the visa applications on the basis that the sponsor had not provided sufficient official documentary evidence to establish her relationship with the visa applicant, Mrs Daramola. Consequently, the sponsorship was not approved, and the visa applications were refused. The application for Master Daramola was refused as a consequence of his mother's application being refused, with the delegate finding he did not meet public interest criterion (PIC) 4018, which requires the Minister to be satisfied that there is no compelling reason to believe that the grant of the visa would not be in the best interests of the child.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the sponsor met the requirements of clause 600.232 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires the visa applicant to be sponsored by a settled Australian citizen or permanent resident who is at least 18 years old and a relative of the visa applicant. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether the delegate’s refusal of Master Daramola’s visa, based on PIC 4018, was correct.

The Tribunal found that the sponsor, an Australian citizen, met the definition of "settled" under regulation 1.03, having been lawfully resident in Australia since March 2007 and not having been outside Australia for more than four months in the two years preceding the visa applications. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "relative" under regulation 1.03, which, in this case, encompassed a sister. The Tribunal was satisfied that the sponsor was a settled Australian citizen and a relative of Mrs Daramola. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the delegate’s reasoning for refusing Master Daramola’s visa under PIC 4018 was flawed, as it was based on the refusal of his mother's application rather than an independent assessment of his best interests.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration. It directed that Mrs Daramola met the criteria for a Subclass 600 visa under clause 600.232, and that Master Daramola met the criteria under clause 600.213(2).