Yanopa (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802 (Child), made by the applicant as the dependent child of an Australian relative. The decision under review affirmed a previous decision, and the matter came before the Tribunal for consideration.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the definition of a "dependent child" as required by clause 802.212 of the Migration Regulations. This involved determining if the applicant was the natural child, step-child, or adopted child of the sponsor, an Australian citizen. The Tribunal was required to assess the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor, particularly in light of the absence of formal adoption or legal orders, and the involvement of the applicant's deceased birth mother.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not the biological or step-child of the sponsor. In assessing whether the applicant could be considered an adopted child under subregulation 1.04(1)(c) and (2), the Tribunal considered arrangements made outside Australia. These arrangements required the sponsor to have assumed a parental role under usual practice or recognised custom, with the child-parent relationship being significantly closer to the sponsor than any other person. Furthermore, the Minister needed to be satisfied that formal adoption was unavailable or not reasonably practicable, and that the arrangements were not contrived to circumvent migration requirements. The Tribunal concluded that while the birth mother was deceased and the family resided outside Papua New Guinea, and the child-parent relationship was significantly closer to the sponsor than any other person, the criteria for adoption under the regulations were not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.