Yenkeni (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an appeal by Mr. Yenkeni concerning the refusal of a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, for his son. The central dispute revolved around the son's date of birth, which was critical for meeting the age requirements of the visa. Mr. Yenkeni, the applicant's father, provided evidence of his son's birthdate, but this conflicted with information previously provided to the Department of Home Affairs.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for the Subclass 101 visa, specifically the requirement that the applicant be under 25 years of age at the time of application, unless they were a dependent child under specific circumstances. The Tribunal also had to consider the definition of "dependent child" as set out in regulation 1.03 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the son's date of birth. While Mr. Yenkeni claimed limited education and a poor memory, the Tribunal found that these explanations did not adequately account for the significant discrepancies. Documents submitted, including a birth certificate issued in 2014 and a passport issued in 2015, indicated a birth year of 1990. However, in a previous application for a Partner visa in 2003, Mr. Yenkeni had stated his son's birthdate as being in mid-1986. During a telephone interview in 2003, he had also stated his son was born in 1986 and was three years old in 1989. The Tribunal noted that the 2014 birth certificate was obtained based on an affidavit sworn by the son, and the 2015 passport was issued based on this birth certificate, which Mr. Yenkeni then relied upon to assert certainty about the 1990 date of birth. The Tribunal concluded that these anomalies were not reasonably explained.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, as the eligibility criteria, particularly the age requirement, were not met. No claims were advanced for other visa subclasses within Class AH.