Ram (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Alvin Vikash Ram against a decision not to grant him and his spouse Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas, specifically a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa. The applicant claimed to be the remaining relative of his sister, Ms Premila Devi Ram, who is an Australian citizen. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 835 visa, particularly the definition of a "remaining relative" under the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was a "remaining relative" of an "Australian relative" as defined by the Regulations. This involved assessing whether the applicant's sister, Ms Premila Devi Ram, was an Australian relative usually resident in Australia, and crucially, whether the applicant and his spouse had no "near relatives" other than those who were usually resident in Australia and were Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens.

The Tribunal applied the definitions of "Australian relative" and "remaining relative" from the Migration Regulations. It found that Ms Premila Devi Ram was indeed the applicant's sister and an Australian citizen, satisfying the requirement that the Australian relative be a parent or sibling. The Tribunal was satisfied, based on oral evidence, that Ms Ram was usually resident in Australia, having established her primary place of residence there. However, the decision was affirmed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that he and his spouse had no "near relatives" outside of Australia who were not Australian citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens. The Tribunal noted that members of the applicant's wife's family resided in Fiji and that the applicant's wife had no contact with them, but this did not negate the existence of these near relatives for the purposes of the visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants the Subclass 835 visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the prescribed criteria for the visa sought.