Turay (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 3747
•28 September 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Turay (Migration) [2021] AATA 3747
[2021] AATA 3747
28 September 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative), in relation to an Australian relative. The primary dispute concerned whether the visa applicant met the definition of an "orphan relative" as required by the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant satisfied the criteria for an orphan relative, specifically whether they could not be cared for by either parent because each parent was dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts. This involved assessing the status of both the applicant's mother and father.
The Tribunal accepted that the visa applicant's father was deceased. However, it was not satisfied that the applicant's mother was dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts, particularly given evidence that she had been paying the applicant's school fees. The Tribunal noted that no further submissions or evidence had been provided by the review applicant to address these concerns, despite multiple attempts by the Tribunal to contact them. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement under regulation 1.14(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 was not met.
As the criteria for the Subclass 117 visa were not met, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant satisfied the criteria for an orphan relative, specifically whether they could not be cared for by either parent because each parent was dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts. This involved assessing the status of both the applicant's mother and father.
The Tribunal accepted that the visa applicant's father was deceased. However, it was not satisfied that the applicant's mother was dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts, particularly given evidence that she had been paying the applicant's school fees. The Tribunal noted that no further submissions or evidence had been provided by the review applicant to address these concerns, despite multiple attempts by the Tribunal to contact them. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the requirement under regulation 1.14(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 was not met.
As the criteria for the Subclass 117 visa were not met, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
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
Turay (Migration) [2021] AATA 3747
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
EC v MIMIA
[2004] FCA 978
Nguyen v MIMA
[1998] FCA 1307
EC v MIMIA
[2004] FCA 978