Wickramasuriya (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2011

Wickramasuriya (Migration) [2018] AATA 2011 (23 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Sarath Bandula Wickramasuriya

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Chanaka Dilip Wijewardana

CASE NUMBER:  1614237

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2015/039568

MEMBER:John Billings

DATE:23 May 2018 

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for an Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the following criteria for a Subclass 116 (Carer) visa are met:

·cl.116.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

·cl.116.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 23 May 2018 at 3:01pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Other Family (Migrant) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 116 (Carer) – Carer of an Australian relative – Dependence on an Australian relative – Nature of care to review applicant’s child – Relationship between applicants – Severe permanent impairment – Psychologist’s reports – Constant supervision and care – Willingness to provide substantial and continuing care – Decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.03, 1.15AA, Schedule 2 cls 116.211, 116.221

CASES
Xiang v MIMIA [2004] FCAFC 64
Perera v MIMIA [2005] FCA 1120

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 17 August 2016[1] to refuse to grant the visa applicant an Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   [1] The decision record is dated 16 August but notification was evidently given on 17 August 2016. 

2. The visa applicant, Mr Wijewardana, applied for the visa on 20 August 2015. At the time he applied, Class BO contained three subclasses, Subclass 114 (Aged Dependent Relative); Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) and Subclass 116 (Carer): item 1123A of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). In the present case, Mr Wijewardana is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 116 visa. The criteria for a Subclass 116 visa are set out in Part 116 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria include cl.116.211.

3. Mr Wijewardana is a 33 year-old national of Sri Lanka.  He is single.  His parents and sister are in Sri Lanka.  Mr Wijewardana is the nephew of the review applicant, Mr Wickramasuriya.  Mr Wickramasuriya is a 57 year-old Australian permanent resident, born in Sri Lanka.  Mr Wickramasuriya and his wife, Ms Nayana Wickramasuriya, who is a 55 year-old Australian permanent resident also born in Sri Lanka, have two Australian citizen children: Rebecca Wickramasuriya, (“Rebecca”) aged 19 years; and Jessica Wickramasuriya (“Jessica”), aged 16 years.  Jessica is the person who requires care. 

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that cl.116.211 was not met.  The delegate noted that another relative, previously granted a Carer visa, declared that he was no longer able to provide care for Jessica.  The delegate however considered that Mr and Mrs Wickramasuriya perform most of the caring tasks and that they need only limited assistance.  The delegate was not satisfied that assistance cannot reasonably be provided by any other relative who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.  Further, the delegate noted that Mr Wickramasuriya had not pursued an option for a respite service for three hours’ care per week.  The delegate concluded that it was “evident that [Mr Wickramasuriya] has not adequately pursued what welfare, nursing or community services are available in Australia”.  Mr Wickramasuriya applied for review on 5 September 2016. 

5. Mr Wickramasuriya appeared before the Tribunal on 21 May 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Wickramasuriya.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Sinhala and English languages.

6. Mr Wickramasuriya was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

7. The Department’s file includes a Carer Visa Assessment Certificate dated 11 June 2015.  According to the certificate, Jessica has severe autism and intellectual disability (diagnosed in 2005); she has an impairment rating of 40; the condition is impairing Jessica’s ability to attend to the practical aspects of daily life; she has a consequential need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life; and the need for direct assistance will continue for at least two years.  The certificate further indicates, in particular, that Jessica requires constant supervision and assistance with most personal activities of daily living: she can dress herself but requires supervision; she can feed herself with supervision.  Jessica has displayed risky behaviour such as wandering and running off into unfamiliar places.  She has become more physical – for instance, kicking and fighting – and she has grown to the point where she “is difficult to handle”. 

8. Mr Wickramasuriya and his family live in a four-bedroom home in a western suburb of Melbourne.  Jessica attends a Specialist School 20-30 kilometres from home.  She travels by school bus. Ms Wickramasuriya drives her between home and the bus pick-up and drop-off point. 

9. Mr Asanga Chandan Hewage, Ms Wickramasuriya’s brother, is the relative previously granted a Carer visa.  That was in 2010.  Mr Hewage is now an Australian permanent resident.  He arrived in Australia in December 2010.  He helped care for Jessica from then until May 2015 when he suffered ill health.  Mr Hewage is now married with two young children.   He works full time.  He lives in a nearby suburb.  He can still help Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya occasionally for an hour or two if they ask him to and give him sufficient notice. 

10. Mr Wickramasuriya works full time as a fitter and turner.  For eight months from the end of 2014 he was unemployed.  He could help care for Jessica during the day then but he cannot now.  Ms Wickramasuriya’s occupation is home duties.  She looks after Jessica, especially getting Jessica ready for school, and during school holidays.  Rebecca is studying full time at university.  Her campus is located on the opposite side of Melbourne. 

11. Other than their daughters and Mr Hewage and his family, Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya do not have any relatives in Australia.  

12. The Department’s file includes a copy of Jessica’s birth certificate and the relevant pages of her Australian passport; a September 2010 letter on behalf of the local council; a May 2016 letter by Jessica’s school teacher; medical reports concerning Jessica and Ms Wickramasuriya; and written statements in support of the application.

13. The material submitted to the Tribunal includes photographs of Jessica with Mr Wijewardana in Sri Lanka in 2012; letters by Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya and Mr Hewage; a letter by Consultant Paediatrician, Dr Carl Orkin, dated 8 September 2016; a letter by the psychologist at Jessica’s school, Mr Daniel Torpy, dated 3 October 2016; a letter by Disability Advocate, Ms Tracey Allen, dated 22 May 2017; a letter by Paediatrician, Dr Chester Tan, dated 17 May 2018; an undated letter by Ms Helen Hodge, described there as chaperone on Jessica’s school bus for the past seven years; and further medical reports concerning Ms Wickramasuriya. 

14. At the hearing, Mr Wikramasuriya showed the Tribunal a video on his phone of Jessica at home while she was having what was referred to as a “tantrum” or “meltdown”. 

15. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

16. Mr Wickramasuriya and Ms Wickramasuriya were most impressive witnesses.  The Tribunal accepts their evidence as truthful. 

17. As discussed further below, there does not appear to be any controversy as to the relationship between Mr Wijewardana and Mr Wickramasuriya, but the primary decision does not actually contain an express finding about that.  The real issues are whether, within the meaning of the Regulations, at the time of application, Mr Wijewardana claimed to be a carer of an Australian relative and whether, at the time of decision, he is a carer of the Australian relative.  More specifically, the issues concern whether or not assistance for Jessica can reasonably be provided by any other relevant relative, or whether it can reasonably be obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.  

18. In considering the case, the Tribunal proceeds in accordance with the President’s Direction Conducting Migration and Refugee Reviews.  The Direction states at paragraph 8.2 that, as a general rule, where the Minister or delegate has made an adverse decision on particular criteria or issues, the Tribunal should restrict its review to those matters.  The Tribunal therefore restricts the review to the issues that it is has just identified.

    Whether the visa applicant has claimed to be a ‘carer’

19. Clause 116.211 of the Regulations requires that the visa applicant claims to be the carer of an Australian relative. The term ‘carer' is defined in r.1.15AA of the Regulations, which is set out in the attachment to this Decision.

20. In the present case, the visa application was made on the basis that Mr Wijewardana is a relative of Mr Wickramasuriya, an Australian permanent resident a member of whose family unit needs assistance. 

21. For the purposes of the Carer visa, ‘Australian relative’ is defined as a relative of the visa applicant who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen: cl.116.211(2). The terms ‘relative’, ‘Australian permanent resident’ and ‘eligible New Zealand citizen’ are defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations. ‘Relative’ includes ‘uncle’.

22. The claim that Mr Wickramasuriya is the uncle of Mr Wijewardana is made on the basis that Mr Wickramasuriya is the brother of Mr Wijewardana’s mother, Ms Dharmalatha Wickramasuriya.  In the primary decision the delegate referred to an affidavit made by Mr Wijewardana’s mother in 2015 that explains certain aspects of relevant birth certificates that were submitted to the Department.  However, the delegate did not expressly make a positive finding that Mr Wickramasuriya is Mr Wijewardana’s uncle.  On the other hand, at folio 102 of the Department’s file, there is a document headed “Assessment” which indicates that the relationship was “established” to the satisfaction of the Department.  As the Tribunal has noted, there does not appear to be any controversy in relation to that matter. 

23. On the material before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of application, Mr Wijewardana claimed to be a carer in the relevant sense.  Therefore, at the time of application, Mr Wijewardana claimed to be the carer of an Australian relative.  He therefore satisfies the requirements of cl.116.211.

    Whether the visa applicant is a ‘carer’

24. Clause 116.221 requires that at the time of decision, the visa applicant is the carer of the Australian relative (or ‘resident’).

25. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(a) requires the applicant is a ‘relative’ of the resident who is the Australian relative (within the meaning of r.1.03 i.e. a ‘close relative’ or other specified relation). In the present case, the Australian relative is identified as the visa applicant’s uncle.

26. As the Tribunal has noted, there does not appear to be any controversy in relation to the relationship between Mr Wijewardana and Mr Wickramasuriya. Therefore there does not appear to be any controversy in relation to whether Mr Wijewardana meets the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(a).

27. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(ba) requires that the person who has the medical condition is an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. The Department’s records confirm that Jessica, who was born here to Australian permanent residents, is an Australian citizen. Accordingly, the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(ba) are met.

28. There is no controversy that paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of r.1.15AA(1)(a) are met – that is that there is a certificate meeting the requirements of r.1.15AA(2) that indicates Jessica’s condition, impairment and needs as outlined above.

29. The Tribunal notes that nearly three years have passed since the date of the Carer Visa Assessment Certificate.  Jessica’s condition is described in the certificate as “permanent”.  The Tribunal has had regard to PAM3 regarding the circumstances in which a fresh assessment should be undertaken.  In the Tribunal’s view, the circumstances of this case do not require that a fresh assessment be undertaken.  Among other considerations, there is other, more recent medical evidence concerning Jessica.  

30. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(e) requires that the assistance cannot reasonably be provided by any other relative of the Australian relative who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or an eligible NZ citizen; or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.

31. The Tribunal has noted that the delegate formed the view that Mr and Mrs Wickramasuriya do most of what is required to care for Jessica and that they need only limited assistance.  On the face of it, this view is at odds with the decision made in 2010 to grant Mr Hewage a Carer visa.  The submissions by Mr Wickramasuriya’s representative highlight the fact that a delegate of the Minister was evidently satisfied that Mr Hewage met the criteria for the visa.  The representative submitted in effect that the true position is that significantly more than limited assistance is required by Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya, especially now that Jessica is almost an adult and they have grown older.  The Tribunal accepts that submission. 

32. The Tribunal considers the position especially as at the time Mr Wijewardana applied for the visa in 2015 and as it has developed since then.  In summary, according to the expert and non-expert evidence, Jessica has a severe permanent impairment.  She has grown taller and heavier.  She is physically stronger than her mother.  Writing in May 2016 GP, Dr Mahendra Menon, described Jessica as “extremely aggressive” sometimes.  The video, and photos that show serious property damage caused by Jessica at home, indicate that she can become very agitated.  Dr Menon noted that Jessica cannot be cared for outdoors.  The Tribunal heard that Jessica very regularly wakes for hours during the night.  She hits, bites, scratches and kicks if she is upset.  She throws and breaks things.  She throws herself on the floor or hits her head on the wall repeatedly.  What will trigger such behaviour cannot really be predicted but a change in routine can trigger it.  If someone does not help Jessica onto or off the school bus, there is risk that she will run off.   (Ms Hodge wrote that she has had to get off the bus and help Ms Wickramasuriya get Jessica onto the bus because Jessica is so strong and because she is “a runner”).   Jessica sometimes tries to open the car doors.  This is a problem especially if she is in the car with only Ms Wickramasuriya.  

33. More detail is contained in the letter by the psychologist at Jessica’s school, Mr Daniel Torpy, which letter he described as a “plea for assistance to loving but physically and emotionally exhausted parents”.  The letter, dated in October 2016, was written after the date of the primary decision and so was not before the delegate.  The letter was written over 18 months ago.  (The Tribunal mentions that it was proposed that Mr Torpy give oral evidence to the Tribunal by telephone but he was unavailable on the afternoon of the hearing.  It would have been valuable to have more up to date evidence from Mr Torpy but there was other evidence, especially the evidence given by Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya, that satisfies the Tribunal in relation to the current situation).  In his letter Mr Torpy said that Jessica has very challenging behaviours such as trying to escape.  He described Jessica as a large girl who is very strong.  She can throw herself onto the ground, go into a tantrum and hit or kick out.  Mr Torpy said that this behaviour “presents considerable difficulty for her parents who get exhausted in the process of watching carefully so that Jessica is safe at all times”.  Mr Torpy said that the world is very confusing for Jessica and she is so easily stimulated that set routines are very important for her.  She needs the comfort of knowing that structure and consistency are part of her daily world.  This puts enormous pressure on her parents who need to be there “24 hours virtually” (apart from Jessica’s time at school), to provide her with necessary care.  The May 2016 letter by Jessica’s teacher (Mr David Bradshaw) was in similar terms. 

34. Concerning the risk of harm to Jessica, Dr Orkin, writing in September 2016, said that Jessica is completely unaware of the risk she exposes herself to.  She tends to “abscond” from home, “sneaking out windows and doors and running down the street unsupervised”.  He said that she will most likely need close supervision in the long term.  Dr Orkin said that Jessica needs 24-hour supervision.

35. Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya emphasise that Jessica does not respond well to strangers.   

36. The nature of the supervision Jessica requires was the subject of comment by Dr Orkin and others.  Dr Orkin said that this would best be provided “by a familiar relative”.  He noted that respite services have not worked due to Jessica’s “increased agitation when in the company of non family members”.   The Tribunal mentions in passing that the 2010 letter on behalf of the local shire council, submitted to the Department, contains what is obviously a typographical error.  The letter states in part that “the family reported Jessica does (sic) respond well to strangers”.    (Consistent with his oral evidence on the subject, in a letter to the Department dated 26 May 2016 Mr Wickramasuriya stated that the family could not take advantage of the respite care because Jessica didn’t respond well to strangers). 

37. Dr Orkin made the comment that Mr Wijewardana has proven to be quite competent in looking after Jessica and that Jessica had responded well to him in the past.  Mr Wickramasuriya frankly acknowledged that Dr Orkin’s remarks were based on information he had given Dr Orkin.  Mr Wickramasuriya elaborated, telling the Tribunal about time the family spent in Sri Lanka about six years ago.   Mr Wijewardana developed a good relationship with both Rebecca and Jessica.  Once Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya were attending a wedding and Jessica was left in the care of Mr Wickramasuriya’s siblings.  They were unable to cope with Jessica’s behaviour but Mr Wijewardana coped well.  As shown in the photos, Mr Wijewardana even managed to accompany Jessica on amusement park rides.  Mr Wijewardana was a regular visitor to Mr Wickramasuriya and his family during the weeks they spent in Sri Lanka.   

38. The Tribunal discussed the nature of care that Jessica requires and the suitability or otherwise of a male carer to provide that.  (It was noted, incidentally, that there are both male and female teachers at Jessica’s school and that previously a man, Mr Hewage, assisted at home).  Mr Wickramasuriya said in effect that Mr Wijewardana’s physical strength would be an asset, especially when Jessica had to be taken to and from the school bus.  He said that, for instance, Mr Wijewardana could also take Jessica swimming which a doctor had recommended for her.  Noting that Jessica needs someone with her all the time, Mr Wickramasuriya said that his nephew would be a support for his wife. 

39. Concerning what assistance might be obtained from welfare, hospital or nursing or community services, there is the following evidence.  In October 2016 Mr Torpy noted that there were “few formal social service agencies that can provide anything more than the occasional two hours a night respite”.  The September 2010 letter on behalf of the local shire council stated that the family could receive up to three hours’ respite care per week “dependent on resources available”.  A statement made by Mr Wickramasuriya this month indicates that he understood that a couple of hours’ respite could be had, but the family had decided against it because it would just unsettle Jessica and that, at the end of the two hours, it would take hours to settle Jessica.  Mr Wickramasuriya told the Tribunal that he had been advised by a council officer that the council could not guarantee, for instance, that a specific person (whether male or female) would provide assistance, or the times that would be.

1. On the basis of the expert and non-expert evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that Jessica requires 24-hour care and supervision and that she will require that indefinitely.  Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the care and supervision needs to be provided by a physically strong person who Jessica can respond to as well as possible.  The Tribunal is satisfied that, although it was about some time ago, Mr Wijewardana has demonstrated to Jessica’s parents that he can provide the required assistance.  

2. Mr Wickramasuriya is the breadwinner of the family.  He works full time.  Rebecca is a full time university student whose capacity to help her parents care for Jessica is therefore limited.  Mr Hewage says he can help only occasionally and then only for an hour or two at a time.  Mr Wickramasuriya describes his health as reasonably good but medical reports submitted to the Department and the Tribunal indicate that Ms Wickramasuriya has significant health problems, including diabetes and severe asthma.  Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya, now aged in their mid-late fifties,  have a reduced capacity to provide the 24-hour supervision and care Jessica needs as she grows and becomes stronger.

3. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that assistance beyond the very limited assistance that the council can offer would be available.  Even if there were some other source of assistance problems would remain, for 24-hour care is required; Jessica needs structure and consistency; and whoever cares for her should be someone she responds to as well as possible. 

4. Taking these matters into consideration, the Tribunal is satisfied that the assistance required cannot reasonably be provided by a relevant relative, or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. Therefore the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(e) are met.

5. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(f) requires that the visa applicant is willing and able to provide to the Australian relative substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed. “Willingness” is concerned with the visa applicant’s state of mind whereas the issue of ability involves an objective inquiry as to whether the visa applicant is a person who is suitable or fit to provide the assistance: Xiang v MIMIA [2004] FCAFC 64 at [7]. The term “substantial and continuing assistance” has not been directly considered in this context but has been the subject of judicial consideration in the context of the definition of “special need relative” in the Regulations. In Perera v MIMIA [2005] FCA 1120, the Court held that the term “substantial” is directed to the level of assistance and the term “continuing” is directed at the duration of the assistance: it is a composite phrase in the sense that its two elements are cumulative (see especially at [17]). The comments in the case were not made in the context of the definition of “carer” but the Tribunal considers the comments to be helpful in the present context.

6. In the visa application Mr Wijewardana declared his knowledge of Jessica’s condition and needs and his intention to help keep her physically safe, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for as long as she needs that.  The Tribunal is generally satisfied by that declaration, together with the written and oral evidence given by Mr and Ms Wickramasuriya, that Mr Wijewardana not only is willing but also is able to provide substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed.  Although there is no evidence that Mr Wijewardana has specialist knowledge about autism, there is evidence to support the statement that he has proven himself competent and that Jessica has responded well to him.  The main care he can provide – as a person who has a suitable manner towards Jessica and who is physically able to support to Ms Wickramasuriya in looking after her – would be in areas specifically noted in the Carer Visa Assessment Certificate: supervising and monitoring Jessica to prevent her wandering or engaging in other unsafe behaviour. 

7. The Tribunal concludes that Mr Wijewardana is willing and able to provide to the Australian relative substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed. He therefore meets the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(f).

8. Given these findings, the Tribunal concludes, first, that at the time of application Mr Wijewardana claimed to be a carer in the relevant sense and therefore satisfies cl.116.211; and, secondly, that at the time of decision Mr Wijewardana is a carer of an Australian relative and therefore satisfies cl.116.221.

9. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 116 visa.

   DECISION

10. The Tribunal remits the application for an Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the following criteria for a Subclass 116 (Carer) visa are met:

    ·cl.116.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl.116.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    John Billings
    Senior Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT

    Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15AA Carer

    1.15AA (1)An applicant for a visa is a carer of a person who is an Australian citizen usually resident in Australia, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen (the resident) if:

    (a)the applicant is a relative of the resident; and

    (b)according to a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2):

    (i)a person (being the resident or a member of the family unit of the resident) has a medical condition; and

    (ii)the medical condition is causing physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of the ability of that person to attend to the practical aspects of daily life; and

    (iii)the impairment has, under the Impairment Tables (within the meaning of subsection 23(1) of the Social Security Act 1991), the rating that is specified in the certificate; and

    (iv)because of the medical condition, the person has, and will continue for at least 2 years to have, a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life; and

    (ba)the person mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

    (c)the rating mentioned in subparagraph (b)(iii) is equal to, or exceeds, the impairment rating specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for this paragraph; and

    (d)if the person to whom the certificate relates is not the resident, the resident has a permanent or long-term need for assistance in providing the direct assistance mentioned in subparagraph (b)(iv); and

    (e)the assistance cannot reasonably be:

    (i)provided by any other relative of the resident, being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; or

    (ii)obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia; and

    (f)the applicant is willing and able to provide to the resident substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed under subparagraph (b)(iv) or paragraph (d), as the case requires.

    (2)A certificate meets the requirements of this subregulation if:

    (a)it is a certificate:

    (i)in relation to a medical assessment carried out on behalf of a health service provider specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing; and

    (ii)signed by the medical adviser who carried it out; or

    (b)it is a certificate issued by a health service provider specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing in relation to a review of an opinion in a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a), that was carried out by the health services provider in accordance with its procedures.

    (3)The Minister is to take the opinion in a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2) on a matter mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) to be correct for the purposes of deciding whether an applicant satisfies a criterion that the applicant is a carer.