Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MIGRATION – whether applicant "dependent child" – meaning of dependent for financial support – significance of condition prohibiting working whilst in Australia – psychological dependence – whether Tribunal applied appropriate test. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 476(1)(e), 476(1)(g), 476(4) Migration Regulations 1958, regs 1.03, 676.211, 676.221(4), 802.212, 802.22, 802.221, Schedules 1, 2, 8 Workers Compensation Act 1972 (Tas) Chakera v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 42 FCR 525, approved Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman (1972) 128 CLR 177, applied Jankovic v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 56 FCR 474, applied
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v SANDRA PIRES
SG 95 of 1998
MANSFIELD J
ADELAIDE
18 DECEMBER 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SG 95 of 1998
BETWEEN: minister for immigration and multicultural affairs
Applicant
AND: sandra pires
Respondent
JUDGE: MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 december 1998
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SG 95 of 1998
BETWEEN: minister for immigration and multicultural affairs
Applicant
AND: sandra pires
Respondent
JUDGE: MANSFIELD J
DATE: 18 December 1998
PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 9 September 1997 Sandra Pires ("the respondent") applied for a Family (Residence) Class AO Subclass 802 (Child) Visa ("the visa") under the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act"). On 10 December 1997, the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the applicant") refused that application. That decision was the subject of internal review under the Act, and was affirmed by the Review Officer on 15 January 1998. Effectively, the delegate and on internal review the internal review officer had determined that the respondent had not met one of the prescribed criteria for the visa, namely that she be "a dependent child" under the Act. On 3 February 1998, the respondent sought review of the decision by the Immigration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 22 June 1998, the Tribunal allowed the application for review. It remitted the application for reconsideration by the applicant with the direction that the applicant had satisfied all the prescribed criteria for the visa with the exception of the public interest criteria. The public interest criteria had not been assessed previously by the delegate, or on review internally, because it not been necessary in the light of the decisions then made. The application was remitted for that limited purpose.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate