Seymour (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3254

Seymour (Migration) [2019] AATA 3254 (15 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Clinton James Seymour

CASE NUMBER:  1730218

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:               CLF2017/6493

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:15 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa:

· cl.835.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and

· cl.835.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 15 March 2019 at 4:23pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa – Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) – near relative offshore – applicant’s father in United Kingdom – no contact with biological father – common law presumption of death – benefit of the doubt – no contact with father for over 7 years – nothing in documents that would allow father to be traced – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A,
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 835.212, 835.221, rr 1.03, 1.15

CASES
Ignatious v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1395
Koitaki Para Rubber Estates Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1941) 64 CLR 241
MIMIA v Hidalgo [2005] FCAFC 192
Scargill v MIMIA [2003] FCAFC 116

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

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 14 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 12 January 2017. At that time, Class BU contained three subclasses, Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative); Subclass 836 (Carer) and Subclass 838 (Aged Dependent Relative). In the present review, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 835 visa which are set out in Part 835 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that cl.835.212 was not met because the applicant’s father, resided in the United Kingdom.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Rachael Seymour, his sister.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The visa application was made on the basis that the applicant is the remaining relative of Jacqueline Rimmington, who the applicant claims is their Australian relative. For the purposes of this application, ‘Australian relative’ means a ‘relative’ of the applicant who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen: r.1.03. ‘Relative’ is also defined in r.1.03 and means a ‘close relative’ as defined, or a grandparent, grandchild aunt, uncle or niece or nephew (or their step equivalents).

6. In this review Jacqueline Rimmington is the applicant’s mother and she is an Australian citizen and therefore is an Australian relative for these purposes.

7. On 30 January 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A as follows:

   ·     In the application for Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) 835 visa made by Clinton James SEYMOUR it was stated that he had a biological father, James Lionel SEYMOUR, who resides in England and is not an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.  It was also stated that his sister, Tammy Leigh Hitching an Australian citizen, resides in England.

   This information is relevant to the review because if the applicant for a remaining relative visa, Clinton James SEYMOUR, has a near relative ie a parent or a sister, who is not usually resident in Australia, irrespective of the quality of familial relationships, then Clinton James SEYMOUR is unable to meet regulation 1.15(1)((c).

   If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that Clinton James SEYMOUR is unable to meet cl.835.212 of the regulations and affirm the decision under review.

8. By letter of 13 February 2019 the applicant stated his sister Tammy Leigh Hitching is now residing in Australia and has been since 6 December 2017. Her passport number is: [deleted]. The applicant’s father neglected him. On one occasion after his father left he passed him in the street and his father totally ignored the fact that he had seen him. It tortured the applicant and made him angry. He has had to have counselling to help him understand the situation and why his father did what he did. He is deeply upset that someone of this status can prevent him from being with his family.

9. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that he would be homeless and would have no family in the United Kingdom if he had to return. He has a bright future in Australia, he works for a water treatment company. They will put him through training. His sister Rachel moved to Australia about 10 years ago and his mother returned to Australia in 2016 and his other sister came later. His mother came back on a resident return visa. The last time he saw his father was when he was 9 years old.  He is now 22 years of age.

   REASONS AND FINDINGS

10. To be granted a Subclass 835 visa the applicant must be a ‘remaining relative’ of an ‘Australian relative’ at time of application, and continue to be a ‘remaining relative’ at time of decision: cl.835.212 and cl.835.221. ‘Remaining relative’ is defined in r.1.15 of the Regulations, which is set out in the attachment to this decision.

11. Broadly speaking, an applicant will be a remaining relative of an Australian relative if that person is a parent, brother, sister, step-brother or step-sister of the applicant and is ‘usually resident in Australia’.

12. The applicant, together with his or her spouse or where relevant, de facto partner, must also have no ‘near relatives’, with the exception of certain relatives in Australia. Additional provisions apply if the applicant is an adopted child.

13. As the Australian relative in this case is the mother of the applicant, r.1.15(1)(a) is met.

14. The dual factors of physical residency and intention are essential elements in the notion of ‘usually resides’ for the purpose of r.1.15: Scargill v MIMIA [2003] FCAFC 116 (‘Scargill’); Ignatious v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1395; and MIMIA v Hidalgo [2005] FCAFC 192. Generally speaking, an individual’s place of residence is to be determined by reference to where he ‘eats and sleeps and has his settled or usual abode’; Koitaki Para Rubber Estates Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1941) 64 CLR 241 at 249, endorsed in Scargill at [17]. Scargill also confirms that the test for usual residence in r.1.15 can extend to the circumstances of a person living lawfully in Australia on a temporary visa.

15. As the Australian relative, the applicant’s mother, is usually resident in Australia, r.1.15(1)(b) is met.

16. Regulation 1.15(1)(c) requires that the applicant have no ‘near relatives’ except those that are usually resident in Australia and are Australian citizens, permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens.

17. ‘Near relative’ for these purposes is defined in r.1.15(2) of the Regulations and means a person who is a parent, brother, sister, step-brother or step-sister of the applicant or of their spouse or where relevant, de facto partner. It also includes a child, or step-child, of the applicant or their spouse or de facto partner who either: has turned 18 and is not a ‘dependent child’; or has not turned 18 and is not wholly or substantially in the daily care and control of the applicant or their spouse or partner.

18. The delegate found that the applicant’s biological father, James Lionel Seymour, resides in England and is not an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.  The applicant’s sister, Tammy Leigh Hitching an Australian citizen, resides in England.

19. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s sister Tammy Leigh Hitching is now residing in Australia and has been since 6 December 2017. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s father neglected him and that on one occasion after the applicant’s father left the family he passed him in the street and his father totally ignored the fact that he had seen him.

20. I have considered Departmental policy that specifically provides that:

    “If an applicant for a remaining relative visa claims that a near relative is dead, or missing and presumed dead, but there is no court presumption of death:

    decision makers should still take account of the [rebuttable] common law presumption that a person who is missing for 7 years is dead when deciding the visa application…”

21. The common law presumption of death is commonly expressed as follows:

    If, at the time when the issue whether a man is alive or dead must be judicially determined, at least seven years have elapsed since he was last seen or heard of, by those in the circumstances of the case would according to the common course of affairs to have received communication from him or have learned of his whereabouts, were he living then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it should be found that he is dead. (Axon v Axon (1937) 59 CLR 395 at [404-51])

22. The Tribunal is sympathetic to the plight of the applicant. His whole family are in Australia.

23. The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided by the applicant and his family. The Tribunal gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepts that the applicant has not seen or heard from his father for over 7 years. The Tribunal accepts that there is nothing in any of the documents that would allow the father to be traced. The Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence to support a claim that the applicant’s father is alive. Therefore the Tribunal presumes his father is dead.

24. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied there are no near relatives other than those permitted by the regulations and therefore r.1.15(1)(c) is met.

25. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is the remaining relative of an Australian Relative at the time of application and at the time of decision for the purposes of cl.835.212 and cl.835.221.

26. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 835 visa.

    DECISION

27. The Tribunal remits the application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa:

    ·cl.835.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and

    ·cl.835.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Lilly Mojsin
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT - Extracts from the Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15     Remaining relative

    (1)An applicant for a visa is a remaining relative of another person who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen if the applicant satisfies the Minister that:

    (a)the other person is a parent, brother, sister, step-brother or step-sister of the applicant; and

    (b)the other person is usually resident in Australia; and

    (c)the applicant, and the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner (if any), have no near relatives other than near relatives who are:

    (i)usually resident in Australia; and

    (ii)Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens; and

    (d)if the applicant is a child who:

    (i) has not turned 18; and

    (ii) has been adopted by an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen (the adoptive parent) while overseas:

    at the time of making the application, the adoptive parent has been residing overseas for a period of at least 12 months.

    (2)In this regulation:

    near relative, in relation to an applicant, means a person who is:

    (a)a parent, brother, sister, step-brother or step-sister of the applicant or of the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner (if any); or

    (b)a child (including a step-child) of the applicant or of the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner (if  any), being a child who:

    (i)has turned 18 and is not a dependent child of the applicant or of the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner (if any); or

    (ii)has not turned 18 and is not wholly or substantially in the daily care and control of the applicant or of the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner (if any).