Ren (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2523

Ren (Migration) [2017] AATA 2523 (4 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Tingting Ren

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Meihua Tian

CASE NUMBER:  1613590

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2010/074288

MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson

DATE:4 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a subclass 143 Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa.

Statement made on 04 July 2017 at 1:00pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) –  Subclass 143 – Sponsor – Daughter – Experiencing financial difficulties – Unable to provide the Assurance of Support – No attendance at hearing

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 cl 143.228

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 on 3 August 2016 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) Subclass 143 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 27 June 2014. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the criteria in cl.143.228 as the delegate found that she did not have an assurance of support approved by the Secretary of Social Security (Centrelink).

   Background

3. The visa applicant is a citizen of China. She was sponsored in her application by her daughter who is the review applicant and is an Australian citizen.

4. The Department wrote to the review applicant, as the authorised agent of the visa applicant, on 13 January 2015 requesting she provide an Assurance of Support as required by cl.143.228. No response was received. On 8 June 2016 the Department again contacted the review applicant to request evidence of the Assurance of Support. On 6 July 2016 the review applicant asked for an extension of time to provide evidence of the Assurance of Support once issues she had with the Australian Taxation Office had been resolved. The Department advised her that no further extension would be granted and no indication was given as to when the review applicant would be in a position to provide the Assurance of Support. No further information was provided to the Department as to the Assurance of Support.

5. The delegate issued a decision on 3 August 2016 noting that an Assurance of Support had not been approved for the visa applicant and therefore the criterion in cl.143.228 was not met. Accordingly, the application was refused.

   Information to the Tribunal

6. The applicant applied for a review of the decision before the Tribunal. She provided a copy of the Department’s decision to the Tribunal. On 14 November 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant requesting evidence that she had an approved Assurance of Support. The review applicant wrote to the Tribunal on 28 November 2016 seeking an extension of time noting that she had become unexpectedly pregnant and was suffering from various conditions. She stated that her personal tax return would not allow her to be the financial sponsor of her mother and therefore had to look for another person to provide the Assurance of Support. The Tribunal advised the review applicant that she was required to provide information that she had an Assurance of Support as soon as possible. No further information was received from the review applicant.

7. As no further information was received and the Tribunal was not able to make a decision favourable to the review applicant. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 9 March 2017 inviting her to a hearing to be held on 12 May 2017.

8. The review applicant provided information that she had given birth to a child on 29 December 2016. It was a premature birth. She made claims of difficulties her family had faced since 2014. She said that since she fell pregnant she has stopped working and was now a full-time mother. She said that she was unable to provide the Assurance of Support herself and would need to find a third party to provide the financial guarantee. She said that her marriage had broken down and she needed her mother to be with her.

9. The review applicant asked for a postponement of the hearing on the grounds that she was breastfeeding. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the request for the postponement had been declined. She was advised that she could attend the hearing with her child and would be provided with facilities to allow her to breastfeed whilst at the Tribunal if required. The Tribunal advised the applicant that she could attend the hearing by telephone if she preferred. The applicant did not attend the hearing or provide any further information as to why she could not have provided any further information to the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal wrote to the review applicant on 12 May 2017 requesting that she provide information about the steps she was taking to lodge the Assurance of Support. She was required to provide that information by 12 June 2017. No response was received from the review applicant.

11. As the review applicant has failed to attend the hearing organised by the Tribunal and has failed to provide any information in support of application in response to a request to do so by the Tribunal the Tribunal has proceeded to a decision.

12. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. The issue in the present case is whether an Assurance of Support has been provided in respect of the application of the visa applicant.

14. The visa applicant and the review applicant have been requested on multiple occasions by the Department and the Tribunal since 13 January 2015 to provide evidence that an Assurance of Support has been accepted by the Secretary of Social Services (Centrelink). The review applicant has on multiple occasions asked for extensions of time, originally claiming that she was waiting for her tax return and then stating that she was making arrangements for a third-party to provide the Assurance of Support as she was now not working and was not in a position to provide the Assurance of Support herself.

15. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant and review applicant have been given more than enough time to provide the Assurance of Support. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the review applicant, as the sponsor, and the visa applicant are not in a position to be able to provide the Assurance of Support and they have provided no information that any third party would be willing to provide the Assurance of Support. Accordingly, it is appropriate to proceed to a decision on the matter.

16. As there is no evidence that an Assurance of Support in relation to the visa applicant has been accepted by the Secretary of Social Services (Centrelink) the Tribunal finds that the criteria in cl.143.228 is not met. Accordingly, the decision to refuse the application must be affirmed.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a subclass 143 Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa.

    Hugh Sanderson
    Member