Pan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant was the child, and the dispute arose from the delegate's dissatisfaction with the consent provided by the child's father. The delegate found a submitted consent document inadequate and, upon attempting to contact the father for confirmation, was not satisfied that the person who responded was indeed the child's father. Further investigation, including DNA testing, revealed that the individual who provided consent was not the biological father.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate had erred in their assessment of the consent requirements for the visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to consider the adequacy of the consent provided, the delegate's efforts to verify that consent, and the implications of the individual providing consent not being the biological father, particularly in light of the law of the applicant's home country permitting the child's removal.

The Tribunal acknowledged that advice had been received from an overseas post confirming the genuineness of the consent document. However, the delegate's subsequent inability to verify the identity of the consenting individual and the discovery that this individual was not the biological father were significant factors. The Tribunal found that the delegate had not been satisfied that the consent requirements were met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration, directing that the applicant meets the criteria under Item 4017 for the purpose of clause 801.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.