Subclass 116 Carer visa

Four roles, not one person

A carer case has to keep four positions distinct, even where they overlap: the *applicant* (the proposed carer); the *Australian relative* the applicant claims to care for, a relative who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen [cl 116.211]; the *sponsor*; and the *person with the medical condition*, who must be an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen [reg 1.15AA(1)(ba)]. For the carer definition, the resident must be an Australian citizen usually resident in Australia, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; the usual-residence words attach to the Australian-citizen limb [reg 1.15AA(1)]. Paragraph 1.15AA(1)(a) separately requires the applicant to be a relative of that resident [reg 1.15AA(1)(a)]. The applicant must satisfy every element of the carer definition at once, and a strong case on one element does not carry the others [reg 1.15AA]. A relationship diagram is worth drawing at the outset, because the relative link, the sponsorship, the care need and the family relationships all have to be consistent with each other.

Relative and family unit are defined, and narrower than everyday usage

*Relative* for this visa means a close relative (spouse or de facto partner, child, parent, brother or sister, plus stepchild, stepbrother and stepsister) or a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew, or their step-equivalents [reg 1.03 def relative] [reg 1.03 def close relative]. First and second cousins are relatives only for a Subclass 200 (Refugee) visa or a protection visa, so a cousin does not qualify here [reg 1.03 def relative]. For a niece or nephew, the chain runs through the sibling link between the applicant's parent and the Australian relative, and that link has to be evidenced. *Member of the family unit* takes its meaning from reg 1.12: the family head's spouse or de facto partner, and their child or stepchild who is under 18, or 18 to 22 and dependent, or 23 or over and dependent under reg 1.05A(1)(b), plus a dependent child of such a child [reg 1.12] [reg 1.05A]. The wider household-relative extension in reg 1.12(4) applies only to the protection and humanitarian visas listed there, not to a carer visa.

The person needing care can be a minor

There is no minimum age on the person with the medical condition. The turned-18 requirement sits on the *sponsor*: either the Australian relative or that relative's cohabiting spouse or de facto partner, each of whom must have turned 18 [cl 116.212]. So where the person who actually needs care is a child, the file is normally built around an adult Australian relative as the resident, with the qualifying medical condition seated in a member of that resident's family unit [reg 1.15AA(1)(b)(i)], and with the resident having a permanent or long-term need for assistance in providing the direct assistance the child requires [reg 1.15AA(1)(d)].

The certificate decides the medical facts

The medical side of the carer definition is not argued in the ordinary way; it is established by a certificate. Regulation 1.15AA(2) requires a certificate based on a medical assessment carried out on behalf of the health service provider the Minister specifies (currently Bupa Health Services, trading as Bupa Medical Visa Services [reg 1.15AA(2)] [LIN 24/040]), signed by the medical adviser who carried it out, or a review certificate from that provider. In practice this is the Carer Visa Assessment Certificate (CVAC). The Minister must take the opinion in a compliant certificate, on the medical-condition matters, to be correct [reg 1.15AA(3)]. The delegate therefore does not re-decide the diagnosis, impairment or rating; the certificate governs those findings.

What the certificate must establish

Four things must line up on the certificate [reg 1.15AA(1)(b)]: a person (the resident or a member of the resident's family unit) has a medical condition; that condition causes physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of the person's ability to attend to the practical aspects of daily life; the impairment carries a rating under the Impairment Tables, meaning the Tables in subsection 23(1) of the Social Security Act 1991; and, because of the condition, the person has and will continue for at least two years to have a need for direct assistance with those practical aspects of daily life.

The rating must reach the specified level: 30

The rating on the certificate must equal or exceed the impairment rating the Minister specifies by instrument, which is 30 [reg 1.15AA(1)(c)] [IMMI 17/126]. This is the hard floor of the medical threshold: a distressing or serious-sounding diagnosis that rates below 30, or that does not translate into a continuing need for direct daily-life assistance, does not satisfy the carer definition. How current the certificate must be is a matter of departmental policy rather than the Regulations, so the acceptable age of a CVAC at decision should be checked against current policy before relying on an older one.

The applicant's own health is a separate criterion

The certificate settles the care receiver's medical facts; it says nothing about the applicant's own health. The proposed carer, and each family member who is also an applicant, must independently satisfy the health criterion PIC 4005 [cl 116.223] [cl 116.226] [PIC 4005]. PIC 4005 carries no ministerial waiver on its significant-cost ground, unlike PIC 4007 used on some other visas, so a single costly condition in the applicant or a migrating family member cannot be waived. A family member who is not migrating must still meet PIC 4005 unless the Minister is satisfied it would be unreasonable to require the assessment [cl 116.226A]. The two medical enquiries run independently: a strong care-receiver certificate does not cure an applicant-side PIC 4005 problem, and neither substitutes for the other.

A single negative test with two branches

Even with a rated medical condition and a willing carer, the definition is not met unless the required assistance cannot reasonably be provided by another Australian relative, and cannot reasonably be obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia [reg 1.15AA(1)(e)]. Both branches must be satisfied. The standard is reasonableness, not absolute impossibility, so it has to be shown that the realistic alternatives do not reasonably cover the actual care need, not merely that the applicant is preferred.

Other Australian relatives

The relatives branch looks at other relatives of the resident who are Australian citizens, permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens [reg 1.15AA(1)(e)(i)]. A bare assertion that relatives are busy, unwilling, stressed, or culturally prefer the applicant is weak. For each relevant relative, the application needs to explain where they live, their work and family responsibilities, their own health, their relationship with the resident, what care they already provide, and the specific reasons they cannot reasonably provide the required care. The decision-maker may also consider whether relatives could provide the care together, including combined or rotational arrangements, so that possibility should be addressed rather than ignored.

Australian services

The services branch asks whether the assistance can reasonably be obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia [reg 1.15AA(1)(e)(ii)]. A service merely existing in the area does not end the inquiry. Reasonable obtainability is assessed against the actual care need: service hours and intensity against the level of care required, eligibility and cost, wait times and location, and whether the service fits the person's linguistic, cultural or religious needs. It helps to research the real services, document any refusals or limits, and compare them against the daily-care need, rather than assuming services are unavailable or waving them away. The line is between a service that cannot reasonably meet the need and a service that could meet it but has been unreasonably rejected.

A separate requirement, and a practical one

Satisfying the no-reasonable-alternative test does not by itself qualify the applicant. The applicant must also be willing and able to provide to the resident the substantial and continuing assistance of the kind the definition requires [reg 1.15AA(1)(f)]. This is a distinct requirement, and "able" is practical, not merely a stated willingness: the applicant has to be realistically capable of delivering the level and duration of care the rated impairment calls for.

What ability turns on

The regulation does not set out a checklist, so the following are the practical matters that bear on ability, assessed on the facts: the applicant's own age, health and mobility; their relevant skills or caring experience; their relationship with the resident and readiness to take on the role; their availability over time and ability to remain available; and their capacity to support themselves financially while caring. Willingness does not carry the point if the applicant's own health, work plan, financial position, or accompanying family commitments would make the care unrealistic. A plan to work full-time is not disqualifying in itself, but the care plan then has to explain how substantial and continuing care will still be delivered.

Tie ability to the actual tasks

The convincing submission does not rest on a declaration of willingness. It translates the rated impairment into the specific tasks the applicant will perform after arrival, and shows a realistic ability to deliver them over the period the need continues.

Being offshore is a validity requirement, not a curable detail

The applicant must be outside Australia when the application is made [Sch 1 item 1123A(3)(aa)]. This is not a grant-stage matter that can be fixed later: an application made while the applicant is in Australia is invalid.

Evidence the medical assessment has been *sought* must accompany the application

A carer application must be accompanied by satisfactory evidence that the relevant medical assessment has been sought [Sch 1 item 1123A(3)(c)]. This is a validity requirement in its own right, and it sits lower than the certificate itself: the completed CVAC is a criterion for grant, but at lodgement it is enough to show the Bupa assessment has been initiated. Lodging with nothing on the medical assessment risks an invalid application, not merely a weak one.

The sponsorship form: not a validity requirement, but a practice issue

The sponsorship form is not a Schedule 1 validity requirement, so its absence does not make the application invalid. As a matter of practice, an unsigned or inconsistent form may stall an otherwise valid application. Lodge it complete, and confirm the current approved form and lodgement channel before filing.