Pan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning the approval of their sponsorship. The Tribunal, constituted by Russell Matheson, considered the requirements for the visa and the evidence provided by the sponsor.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the sponsorship met the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), specifically concerning the approval of the sponsor and the provision of police clearance certificates. The Tribunal had to determine if the sponsor had complied with requests for police checks from relevant jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, where the sponsor had resided for a significant period.

The Tribunal reasoned that the criteria for a Child (Residence) visa, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, included the requirement for an approved sponsorship under clause 802.226. Regulation 1.20KB limits the discretion to approve sponsorships, particularly where a sponsor or their spouse has been charged with or convicted of registrable offences, and applies when the applicant is under 18. The Tribunal noted that the sponsor had lived in Hong Kong for a cumulative period of 12 months or more within the last 10 years. The Department had requested police clearances from Australia and Hong Kong. The Tribunal found that the applicant met the criteria under cl.802.226.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa for reconsideration, directing that the applicant met the criteria under cl.802.226 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.