Ramesh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Skilled – Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa, Subclass 189. The central dispute concerned whether the applicant qualified as a "member of the family unit" of a primary visa holder, specifically in relation to dependency.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant, who was over 23 years old at the time of the delegate's decision, met the definition of a dependent child under regulation 1.12(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on another person for financial support due to an incapacity for work, as stipulated by regulation 1.05A(1)(b).

The Tribunal reasoned that for a child over 23 to be considered a member of the family unit, they must be dependent on the primary visa holder or their partner due to an incapacity for work. The applicant, born in 1994, was 23 at the time of the delegate's decision and 27 at the time of the Tribunal's review. Despite a request for updated information regarding his dependency, none was provided. The only available information from 2018 indicated the applicant was studying and working part-time. The Tribunal found no evidence to support a claim of incapacity for work due to bodily or mental functions, nor any evidence of financial reliance stemming from such incapacity. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the dependency requirements of regulation 1.12(2) or any other limb of regulation 1.12.

As the applicant was not found to be a member of the family unit of a primary visa holder and did not satisfy the primary criteria for the Subclass 189 visa himself, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.