Ravindran (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Ravindran, a secondary applicant for a Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa (Subclass 189). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Ravindran met the definition of a "member of the family unit" as required for the visa grant, specifically concerning dependency requirements.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr. Ravindran, who had turned 23, was dependent on the primary applicant, his father, according to the relevant migration regulations. This involved interpreting the criteria for dependency, particularly whether the applicant was incapacitated for work or met other exceptional circumstances that would allow him to be considered a member of the family unit despite being over the age of 23.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the definitions provided in Regulation 1.05A of the Migration Regulations 1994, which outlines the conditions for dependency. It was established that for an applicant over 23 years of age, dependency is generally only recognised if they are incapacitated for work due to a total or partial loss of bodily or mental functions. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that Mr. Ravindran had not turned 23, was not incapacitated for work, and did not present unique or exceptional circumstances such as serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm or continuing hardship, nor significant integration into the Australian community.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. However, the Tribunal also referred the case to the Department for the Minister's attention with a recommendation that the Minister's powers to intervene under s.351 of the Migration Act 1958 be exercised.