Trevail (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for merits review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa. The visa applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for the visa in the sponsored family stream. The review applicant, an Australian citizen, acted as the sponsor. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.232 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which requires the sponsor to be a relative of the applicant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant satisfied clause 600.232 of the Migration Regulations. This clause outlines the requirements for sponsorship in the sponsored family stream, specifically requiring the sponsor to be a relative of the applicant. The Tribunal was required to determine if the evidence presented established the requisite relationship between the sponsor and the visa applicant.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant did satisfy clause 600.232(2)(a). Despite the sponsorship form declaring no relationship, subsequent evidence, including birth certificates, an affidavit of paternity, and statements from the sponsor, established that the sponsor was the father of the visa applicant's child and had been in a partnership with the visa applicant for over 23 years. The Tribunal considered that the sponsor’s declaration of no relation on the form was likely an error, given the other substantial evidence of a familial relationship and long-term partnership.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The matter was remitted back to the delegate for reconsideration, with a direction that the visa applicant satisfied the criteria under clause 600.232(2)(a). The delegate was then to consider the remaining criteria for the visa application.