Vo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking review of a decision to refuse her application for a Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) visa, Subclass 884. The applicant contended that she was not eligible for the visa because she did not meet the definition of an "aged parent" at the time of her application in December 2016.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of regulation 1.03 and clauses 884.212 and 884.311 of the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time she lodged her visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant met the age criteria to be considered an "aged parent" as defined by regulation 1.03, which linked to eligibility for an age pension under the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that, according to the pension age table for women born between 1 July 1955 and 31 December 1956, the applicant, born on 2 May 1956, needed to be at least 66 years and six months of age to qualify as an "aged parent." As the applicant was only 60 years and seven months old at the time of her application, she did not meet this definition, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of clause 884.212. The applicant and her representative argued that an error had been made in lodging the application for this specific subclass, and that corrected forms had been submitted to rectify a clerical error. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the essential eligibility criteria for the visa subclass applied for at the time of lodgement.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant the Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) Subclass 884 visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant retained the ability to apply directly for Ministerial Intervention under section 351 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) if she wished.