Sorisho (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 2504
•18 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sorisho (Migration) [2019] AATA 2504
[2019] AATA 2504
18 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, specifically a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa. The applicant sought to be recognised as a carer for his father, Mr Karim Yousif, an Australian resident. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member Justin Owen.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the definition of a "carer" as prescribed by regulation 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant's father had a medical condition necessitating direct assistance, that this assistance could not reasonably be provided by any other eligible relative or obtained from Australian welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services, and that the applicant was willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance.
The Tribunal considered evidence of the sponsor's medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, dementia, and depression, which resulted in a rating of 50 under the Impairment Tables. While the applicant claimed to provide 24-hour care, the Tribunal noted the presence of the applicant's mother and sister, Eptesam, who also resided at the home and provided care. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his sisters were unable to provide at least some degree of support to their father. Furthermore, there was no corroborative evidence presented regarding attempts to obtain welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa, finding that the prescribed criteria for a carer visa had not been met.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the definition of a "carer" as prescribed by regulation 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant's father had a medical condition necessitating direct assistance, that this assistance could not reasonably be provided by any other eligible relative or obtained from Australian welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services, and that the applicant was willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance.
The Tribunal considered evidence of the sponsor's medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, dementia, and depression, which resulted in a rating of 50 under the Impairment Tables. While the applicant claimed to provide 24-hour care, the Tribunal noted the presence of the applicant's mother and sister, Eptesam, who also resided at the home and provided care. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his sisters were unable to provide at least some degree of support to their father. Furthermore, there was no corroborative evidence presented regarding attempts to obtain welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa, finding that the prescribed criteria for a carer visa had not been met.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sorisho (Migration) [2019] AATA 2504
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Jajo v MIBP
[2013] FCCA 1554
Anveel v MIBP
[2013] FCCA 2181