Vanina (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa by an Indonesian citizen. The applicant claimed to be the remaining relative of Mr Mario, who she asserted was her Australian relative. The decision under review was made by the Migration Tribunal, with Member Mila Foster presiding.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 835 visa, specifically whether she was a "remaining relative" of an "Australian relative" at the time of her application and at the time of the decision. This involved assessing the composition of her family, including the existence and location of any near relatives, in accordance with clauses 835.212 and 835.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994. A key aspect of the assessment was the interpretation of "movement records" and the validity of a certificate issued under section 376 of the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal found the applicant, Mr Mario, and Mr Dewangga to be credible witnesses, whose oral evidence was consistent with the documentary evidence. The Tribunal also determined that a certificate issued under s 376 of the Act, which sought to prevent disclosure of movement records, was not valid because the information had been retrieved from the Movement Data Base and saved to a Department case file, thus no longer being information stored in the Movement Data Base itself. Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was the remaining relative of an Australian relative at the relevant times.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under cl 835.212 and cl 835.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.