Sethi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visas, specifically Subclass 116 (Carer), brought by Indian citizens, a primary visa applicant and her daughter, sponsored by the primary visa applicant's aunt, an Australian citizen. The care recipient was the aunt's mother, who required assistance due to a medical condition. The core dispute revolved around whether the primary visa applicant qualified as a "carer" under the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether the care recipient's needs could not reasonably be met by other means. The decision was made by Maxina Martellotta, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the primary visa applicant met the criteria for a carer visa, specifically whether she was a relative of the Australian resident, whether a valid certificate established the resident's medical condition and need for ongoing assistance, and crucially, whether such assistance could not reasonably be provided by any other relative who was an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, or obtained from Australian welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services. The Tribunal also considered whether the primary visa applicant was a "remaining relative" as per clause 115.211.

The Tribunal found that while the primary visa applicant was a relative of the Australian resident and a valid certificate indicated the resident's medical condition and need for assistance, the primary visa applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 115.211 as she had other relatives residing in India. This meant she was not a "remaining relative" of the Australian resident. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visas.