Ren (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a subclass 143 Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa. The review applicant, who was the daughter of the visa applicant, acted as the sponsor. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether the required Assurance of Support had been provided in respect of the visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the criteria for the visa, specifically as stipulated in clause 143.228 of the Migration Regulations 1994, had been met. This clause requires an Assurance of Support to have been accepted by the Secretary of Social Services (Centrelink). The Tribunal was required to consider whether sufficient evidence had been provided by the visa applicant and the review applicant to satisfy this requirement, given the repeated requests for extensions and the stated inability of the sponsor to provide the Assurance of Support herself due to financial difficulties.

The Tribunal reasoned that both the visa applicant and the review applicant had been afforded ample opportunity, since January 2015, to provide evidence of an accepted Assurance of Support. The Tribunal noted the review applicant's explanations for delays, including waiting for tax returns and subsequently stating she was not in a position to provide the Assurance of Support herself and was seeking a third-party arrangement. However, no information was presented to the Tribunal indicating that any third party was willing or able to provide the Assurance of Support. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria in clause 143.228 were not met, as there was no evidence of an accepted Assurance of Support.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa application.