Salib (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, who sought a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, sponsored by an Australian relative. The applicant claimed to be the carer of her grandson, Daniel Bassily Said. The Sponsorship Form 40 identified Samuel Bassily Said, Daniel's brother, as the sponsor. The primary decision-maker found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 836.213 because the sponsor (Samuel) was not the same person as the relative requiring care (Daniel). The delegate also found that Samuel could not be considered the Australian relative requiring care, as he claimed he could not provide assistance to Daniel, and therefore the need for care was not to assist the sponsor. Furthermore, the delegate was not satisfied that Daniel was a member of Samuel's family unit, as required by regulation 1.15AA(1)(b)(i), and noted that a CVAC certificate did not identify Daniel as requiring requisite care.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was the carer of an Australian relative, specifically whether the sponsorship and care requirements of the visa were met. This involved considering the identity of the sponsor and the person requiring care, and whether the relationship between them satisfied the relevant legislative provisions. The Tribunal also had to consider the implications of the sponsor being a minor and the applicant's claimed role as a carer.

The Tribunal reviewed the Sponsorship Form 40 and accompanying documentation, confirming that Samuel Bassily Said was the identified sponsor and Daniel Bassily Said was the person identified as needing care. The Tribunal found that Samuel was the 'resident' for the purposes of regulation 1.15AA. The Tribunal noted that if Daniel had been identified as the sponsor, he would have been under 18 at the time of the application, which would have meant the applicant could not have met the requirements of clause 836.213(a)(i). The Tribunal affirmed the primary decision.