Yang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, subclass 101 (Child), where the applicant was over 18 years of age. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant was a "dependent child" of the review applicant at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision. The decision was made by Peter Emmerton, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 101.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the definition of a "dependent child" under regulation 1.03 and 1.05A, and whether these requirements continued to be met at the time of the decision as per clause 101.221. For applicants over 18, this required demonstrating ongoing financial dependency for a substantial period, at least 12 months, immediately prior to the application, and that this reliance was greater than any other source of support.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant, being 20 years old at the time of application, did not meet the criteria for a dependent child as he was not incapacitated for work. The Tribunal examined documentary evidence, including bank transaction statements and transfer details, presented to demonstrate financial dependency. While some documents indicated transfers from Hui Zeng to Tonngen Xie, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not clearly establish that the visa applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on the review applicant for financial support to meet his basic needs, nor that this reliance was greater than any other source of support, for the required 12-month period prior to the application.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 101.211 and therefore did not meet the criteria for the grant of a Child (Migrant) visa under clause 101.221. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.