Wallisch (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Wallisch against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse a Subclass 445 (Dependent Child) visa to Ms Willemenke. The primary issue was whether Ms Willemenke continued to meet the definition of a "dependent child" at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision, as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Willemenke was a "dependent child" of Ms Glander, the visa-holding parent. This involved assessing whether Ms Willemenke was engaged to be married or had a spouse or de facto partner, and crucially, if she had turned 18, whether she was dependent on Ms Glander. The Tribunal also had to consider the definition of a de facto relationship under s 5CB of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the factors outlined in r 1.15A(3) and r 1.09A(3) of the Regulations.

The Tribunal considered the meaning of "substantially reliant" in the context of dependence, drawing on case law which indicated it meant "predominantly" or "primarily, essentially or in the main". It also noted that the assessment of dependence should consider the applicant's own resources and the nominator's obligation to meet needs. In this instance, the Tribunal found that Ms Willemenke, who was over 18, worked part-time and used her income to cover her food, shelter, and clothing expenses. Her income was sufficient to meet these basic needs, meaning she was no longer wholly or substantially reliant on her mother for them.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that Ms Willemenke did not meet the criteria for a dependent child at the time of the decision.