Zheng (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 143 Contributory Parent visa by Ms Qizhi Liu, with Ms Lujia Zheng identified as the review applicant and potential sponsor. The core dispute revolved around whether Ms Liu had met the sponsorship requirements at the time of her visa application lodgement. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Liu satisfied clause 143.212 of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that an applicant for a Subclass 143 visa must be sponsored by an eligible person. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the appointed sponsor, Mr Kenneth Yee Hong Cheung, met the criteria of being the applicant's child or the cohabitating spouse of the applicant's child, and if sponsorship undertakings were validly provided at the time of application.

The Tribunal reasoned that at the time of the visa application lodgement in November 2014, no sponsor was appointed, and the relevant sponsorship forms were not included. While a Form 40 nominating Mr Cheung as sponsor was later submitted in August 2017, the Tribunal found that Mr Cheung did not appear to be an eligible sponsor as he was neither the applicant's child nor the spouse of the applicant's child, Ms Lujia Zheng. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Ms Lujia Zheng, the applicant's only living child, had undertaken sponsorship obligations at the time of the application. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Liu did not satisfy the sponsorship requirements under clause 143.212.

Despite affirming the decision that the applicant did not meet the visa criteria, the Tribunal considered the compassionate circumstances presented, including the applicant's mother being alone in Shanghai and the potential for serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm if separated. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to the Minister for consideration under ministerial intervention, noting that the review applicant had since provided a Form 40 and sponsorship undertakings.