Parwinder Raj Kaur (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5043

Parwinder Raj Kaur (Migration) [2019] AATA 5043 (8 November 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Parwinder Raj Kaur

VISA APPLICANT:  Miss Anureet Kaur

CASE NUMBER:  1829421

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2018/031873

MEMBER:Helen Kroger

DATE:8 November 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 101 visa:

·Public Interest Criteria 4017 for the purposes of cl.101.226 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 08 November 2019 at 11:57am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa – Subclass 101 (Child) – legal permission for child’s removal – consent form co-signed by both biological parents – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 101.226; Schedule 4, PIC 4017

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 17 May 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 29 August 2018.

2. The criteria for a Subclass 101 visa are set out in Part 101 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl.101.226 that requires Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4017 to be satisfied when the applicant has not turned 18 years of age.

3. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of consent from the visa applicant’s father had not been submitted to the delegate for consideration. On the 13 July 2018 the delegate requested evidence to satisfy PIC 4017, namely a Form 1229 co-signed by both parents and/or other credible evidence and the delegate was not satisfied with the review applicant’s response at that time. Evidence was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. On 22 August 2019 the Tribunal received Form 1229, co-signed by the biological parents of the visa applicant. The Tribunal has reviewed this document along with a copy of official identification documents (folio 23) belonging to the visa applicant’s father, who is identified in the applicant’s birth certificate.  The Tribunal has considered the name, photo and signature on these documents and is satisfied that the signature on the identity document, that of Mr Singh, the visa applicant’s biological father, is the same as that identified on Form 1229, as the second parent.  In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   DECISION

5. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 101 visa:

   ·Public Interest Criteria 4017 for the purposes of cl.101.226 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Helen Kroger
   Member