Today we are talking about a case of Child Visa (Visa Category 101). This is a real case of immigration appeal court (AAT). Case No. Chen (Migration)[2019] AATA 5074
Before speaking, let`s take a brief look at the children`s visa requirements:
- Applicants are required to be children of Australia Citizen, Australia PR, valid New Zealand citizen;
- Children need less than 25 years of age;
- If the child reaches the age of 18, the following are also required:
- No marry, no spouse;
- All necessary expenses for daily life (including food, clothing, housing, etc.) are funded by the guarantee;
- Maintain full-time study;
- not participate in full-time work.
Let`s move on to the topic and start the case story:
Main characters:
- YC - child visa applicants who have reached the age of 18 at the time of application;
- MW - The applicant`s mother, living in China;
- WC - The applicant`s father, Australian permanent residence visa holder.
Background of the case
The story begins in 1998, when the first-born WC traveled to Australia on a three-month-old tourist visa and never returned. The WC has been in Australia illegally for more than 10 years and has been held by the Immigration Department for several months because of its identity as a black citizen. After a dark history, wc and another australian woman, mary, ran their own carpentry business in australia and eventually acquired an australian permanent status.
In 2011, the successful wc and mw officially divorced and gave mw a lump sum of rmb 180,000.
In 2016, at the time YC had just turned 18, WC decided to help his child apply for a child visa and submit the application. Unfortunately, the visa was rejected in 2017.
The WC filed an AAT appeal, and after a long wait and trial, AAT finally upheld the Immigration Department`s verdict in 2019. YC failed to obtain an Australian visa.
Analysis of key points
The main point in the case was whether the WC had provided economic support to the child after he turned 18 to pay for food, clothing and shelter. because if wc has no way to prove that he provided support to yc, then yc does not meet the requirement of child visa.
Chart: Adobe Stock
Important evidence
- The WC claimed to AAT that between 1998 and 2011, he sent his wife and children an annual fee of about A $10,000 for living expenses. However, because of his status as a black citizen in Australia, there is no way to provide any written information to prove the remittance.
- Because there was no way to prove the authenticity of these remittances, AAT eventually failed to accept this evidence. Therefore, WC has no way to prove that it provided financial support to its child YC between 1998 and 2011.
- In 2011, WC paid a one-time MW divorce compensation of 180,000 RMB. and provided the compensation agreement at that time. the agreement states that the cost is used to compensate mw for economic losses, compensation for mw maintenance yc losses, etc. This fee has a clear remittance record and use description. But because the cost is paid to MW by WC, and it is not clear that this fee will include the cost after YC turns 18. The court was therefore unable to determine whether YC contributed MW to the cost of living beyond the age of 18.
- In 2015 and 2016, WC sent YC remittance twice, each remittance was 12000RMB. According to the description of the party concerned, the two remittance is to buy mobile phone and other items for YC respectively. Because these two charges are for the purchase of mobile phones and are not essential to the food, clothing, housing and other necessities of life prescribed by the Immigration Department, WC cannot be found to have provided living financial support to YC on these two charges.
[律] court decision
Combined with the above 3 points of evidence, AAT argued that YC did not provide the necessary financial support for life after WC adulthood, so YC did not meet the requirements of the child visa, so it was refused.
Lawyer`s comments
Children`s visas are generally understood as one of the easiest PR visa categories in Australia. However, in the application practice, there may be a variety of difficulties and hidden dangers.
In this case, if the father, wc, had taken into account the requirement for a future child visa in the divorce case in 2011, the refusal would have been entirely avoided. Even a timely remedy after the child`s adulthood in 2016 won`t produce a rejection.
Australia`s immigration law is a very complex and large system, and ordinary people may not be able to fully understand every small requirement, let alone every requirement in the immigration law.
In the face of the not-so-simple australian visa, it`s especially important to consult professional immigration lawer in advance.
Give professional things to professional people. This is the purpose that we have always advocated. If you have any questions about your child`s visa or other visa, you are welcome to consult a professionally reliable company.
The content of this article is purely for reference and is not part of the law proposal
Submission: Shengjing lawer line
Address: Suite 703,265 Castlereagh St, Sydney 2000
Fax:6129 261 4700
Tel:612 2926 7988
Mobile:6104 11814 500
Email:[ email protected]
Website: www.sunlaws.com.au
This article is made up of provided, representing the views of the original author only, does not represent the position of this website.
