Arrangements for Child Visa Applications 2016/051

The instrument operates by specifying matters authorised by the Migration Regulations 1994. Key legal concepts in the text are "not a valid visa application", "seeks to meet the requirements ... by claiming to have been adopted", the identification of a "particular time" by country and period in the Schedule, and prescription of form, place and manner requirements.

"Not a valid visa application": Paragraphs 2 and 3 use this precise phrasing. That is a legal status, not a discretionary refusal power stated in the instrument. The text does not elaborate consequences beyond declaring invalidity; it is therefore a mechanism that removes an application from the set of valid applications for the specified visa items if the specified factual pathway (an adoption claim in the manner described) is relied upon.

"Seeks to meet the requirements ... by claiming to have been adopted": The instrument ties invalidity to an applicant attempting to satisfy specified subclauses of Schedule 2 (102.211(2) for item 1108 and 802.213(5) for item 1108A) by asserting adoption in an overseas country at a particular time. The instrument does not define adoption, adoption evidence standards, or detailed fact-finding procedures; it simply links the invalidity trigger to an adoption-based pathway set out in those Schedule 2 subclauses.

"Particular time" specified by Schedule: Paragraphs 2 and 3 do not leave "particular time" open. They instruct that, for the purposes of the subparagraphs listed, the country in Column A and the period in Column B of the Schedule are "the time referred to" in the paragraph. The Schedule lists one country, Pakistan, and specifies "No limitation on time period". Practically, the instrument therefore treats any claimed adoption in the country of Pakistan, at any time, as falling within the "particular time" that triggers the invalidity rule.

Form, place and manner prescription: Paragraph 4 replaces or specifies the required forms and the addresses and acceptable lodgement methods for items 1108, 1108A and 1211. The table prescribes form numbers (47CH for the child migrant and child resident items, 918 for extended eligibility (temporary) class TK). It prescribes two concrete delivery routes: posted with sufficient pre-paid postage to a Locked Bag address in Northbridge WA, or courier delivery to a Wellington Street West Perth address. The table applies those place and manner requirements to all three items listed (the table uses a rowspan that covers the three item rows).

Statutory basis and commencement: The instrument is made under subregulation 2.07(5) of the Migration Regulations 1994, is signed by the Assistant Minister, and commences the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislation. The compilation note records later amendments (LIN instruments) and the compilation date.

Interaction anchors: The instrument explicitly references specific items and subclauses in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Migration Regulations (for example, item 1108, subclause 102.211(2), 1108A, subclause 802.213(5), subparagraphs 1108(3)(c)(ii), 1108A(3)(f)(ii), and (iii)). It also evokes reg 2.10 in the explanatory notes appended to the table (Note 1 and Note 2). The instrument therefore functions as a specification that modifies how those existing provisions are applied in practice.

No other substantive eligibility criteria or definitions are added by the instrument. It does not create new visa classes, it does not amend the text of the Migration Regulations themselves in this instrument, and it does not set out a review or appeal mechanism. It confines itself to (a) specifying a factual/time/country parameter that triggers invalidity for adoption-route claims for listed items, and (b) prescribing forms and lodgement addresses and methods.

Principal affected parties are applicants for the specified visa items, their sponsors or guardians, migration agents and legal advisers, the Department of Home Affairs processing units named in the instrument, postal and courier services used to lodge applications, and decision-makers who operate under the Migration Regulations.

Applicants: Persons lodging applications for item 1108 (Child (Migrant) (Class AH)), item 1108A (Child (Residence) (Class BT)) and item 1211 (Extended Eligibility (Temporary) (Class TK)) are directly affected. The instrument changes the validity test applicable to those lodging claims that rely on having been adopted in an overseas country at a particular time (paragraphs 2 and 3). For applicants with an adoption connection to Pakistan, the Schedule (Column A: Pakistan; Column B: No limitation on time period) means that any claim of adoption in Pakistan, at any time, falls within the specification that can render the application not valid.

Sponsors and guardians: Sponsors or parents who prepare, sponsor or assist with child visa applications in the specified items need to ensure the application does not rely on the described adoption pathway if the applicant claims adoption in the country specified in the Schedule. They also must ensure the correct form is used and that the application is posted or couriered to the specified processing centre addresses (paragraph 4 and table).

Migration agents and legal advisers: Agents must adjust lodgement practices to the mandatory form numbers and addresses (47CH for items 1108 and 1108A; 918 for item 1211; specified post and courier addresses in paragraph 4). Agents advising clients on adoption-based eligibility must consider the instrument’s invalidity trigger and advise whether the client's factual pathway is affected , particularly where adoption in Pakistan is claimed. The instrument requires attention to procedural compliance because an application rendered "not a valid visa application" cannot be processed as an ordinary valid application.

Department of Home Affairs processing centres: The instrument directs applications to specific processing centres and delivery addresses, channeling workload to the Child and Other Family Processing Centre at Locked Bag 7 Northbridge WA 6865 and to Wellington Central, West Perth for courier deliveries (paragraph 4 and table). Operationally, those processing units will receive and triage applications lodged under the required forms and addresses.

Postal and courier services: The lodgement model requires posted applications with sufficient pre-paid postage to a Locked Bag address or courier delivery to a specified street address. Applicants and intermediaries must use Australia Post or international postal services insofar as they can obtain pre-paid postage, or commercial couriers that can deliver to the street address; procedural failure may lead to misdelivery or rejection for non-compliance with prescribed "place and manner" (paragraph 4 and table).

Decision-makers and adjudicators: The instrument alters the threshold for what the Department will accept as a valid application under the specified items when the application seeks to rely on an adoption claim for the listed country and period. Decision-makers applying Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations will need to apply the instrument’s specification when determining whether an application is valid or not (paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 reference how the instrument interacts with specific Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 provisions).

Other indirect groups: Anyone assessing procedural risk, such as employers, advocates, charities and community groups assisting families with child visas, will need to factor the instrument into intake checks and evidentiary reviews. The instrument's schedule being limited to Pakistan means that persons with adoption histories from other countries are not directly affected by the specification in the Schedule, but they remain subject to existing Schedule 2 requirements unmodified by this instrument.

Duties imposed by the instrument are procedural and conditional. The most concrete duties are the required form and lodgement rules, and the conditional duty not to rely on a particular adoption-based pathway if it would cause the application to be "not a valid visa application" under paragraphs 2 or 3.

Duty to use specified form: Paragraph 4 and the accompanying table require that an application for item 1108 or 1108A must be made using form 47CH, and that an application for item 1211 must be made using form 918. That is an explicit duty placed on applicants; failure to use the mandated form is at least a risk of non-compliance with the instrument’s form requirement and therefore may affect acceptance of the application.

Duty as to place and manner of lodgement: Paragraph 4 prescribes two permissible lodgement routes, a posted option and a courier option, and provides full postal and courier addresses. Applicants must post "with sufficient pre-paid postage" to the Locked Bag address or deliver by courier to the Wellington Street address. The instrument thereby places a duty to choose one of the prescribed lodgement methods and to ensure postage is sufficient. The table indicates the application "must be" posted or couriered to those addresses, which is a mandatory procedural requirement.

Conditional duty regarding adoption-based claims: Paragraphs 2 and 3 impose a substantive condition: an application for a Child (Migrant) or Child (Residence) visa "is not a valid visa application" if it "seeks to meet the requirements" in the specified Schedule 2 subclauses by "claiming to have been adopted in an overseas country at a particular time", where that "particular time" is identified by the instrument's Schedule. The effect is that applicants who would otherwise attempt to establish eligibility by such adoption claims must not present their application in that manner if they wish it to be "a valid visa application" for the listed items. For Pakistan the Schedule specifies "No limitation on time period", meaning any reliance on an adoption claim from Pakistan creates the twin facts necessary for the invalidity rule to operate (paragraphs 2, 3 and Schedule).

Rights implicit or left unchanged: The instrument does not create new appeal or review rights. It does not in itself restore or create a right to administrative review where an application is declared "not a valid visa application". It also does not state rights of applicants to alternative lodgement methods or to be notified of invalidity. Existing rights and remedies in the Migration Regulations or in other statutes remain applicable where they exist, but the instrument itself does not specify any right to internal review, merits review, or judicial review in relation to its specifications.

Administrative obligations on the Department: The instrument prescribes the lodgement addresses and forms, which directs how the Department must receive applications. The Department must accept or process applications lodged using the prescribed form and at the prescribed addresses. The instrument does not specify processing timeframes, evidentiary standards for adoption, or any recordkeeping obligations beyond the address and form requirements.

Other duties referenced: The instrument cites the statutory foundation (subregulation 2.07(5) of the Migration Regulations 1994) as the power to make these specifications (opening recital). Note 1 and Note 2 appended to the table reference paragraph 2.10(2)(a) and (b) of the Regulations and explain where applications made outside Australia must be lodged if there are no Schedule 1 or Division 2.2 requirements. Those notes are explanatory but indicate an existing procedural duty under reg 2.10(2) outside the instrument itself.

This instrument deploys invalidity as the operative enforcement mechanism. It contains no express monetary penalties, criminal offences, suspension powers, or administrative fine regimes. The sole direct enforcement effect in the text is to render certain applications "not a valid visa application" where the application attempts to satisfy particular Schedule 2 requirements by claiming adoption in the country and period specified in the Schedule (paragraphs 2 and 3).

Consequences of invalidity: The instrument does not set out the downstream consequences that follow once an application is "not a valid visa application". The phrase is declaratory and procedural: it excludes the application from the category of valid visa applications. That exclusion will have practical consequences under the Migration Regulations and administrative practice: a document that is not a valid application is likely not to be accepted for processing as an application under the relevant Schedule 1 items, and the Department may decline to take action on it as an application. The instrument itself, however, does not specify refusal grounds, decisions, or appeal pathways following a finding of invalidity.

No new enforcement powers for officials: The instrument does not create or modify powers of Department officers to examine, verify, or refuse applications beyond applying the invalidity specification and the prescribed forms and lodgement addresses. It contains no additional investigative powers, penalties for misrepresentations, or enhanced sanctions. Existing offences and penalties in the Migration Act 1958 and other provisions of the Migration Regulations, if any, remain available to enforcement authorities but are not altered by this instrument.

No express administrative review or appeal process created: The instrument does not provide that a decision to treat an application as not valid gives rise to a right of internal review, merits review or judicial review. Any rights of review or appeal will therefore be the rights that exist under the Migration Act or other legislation or administrative law, but those are not set out in this instrument.

Operational enforcement through procedure: Enforcement in practice will be procedural. Applications that fail to comply with the form, place and manner requirements in paragraph 4 may be returned, not accepted, or otherwise set aside as non-complying. Applications that purport to satisfy Schedule 2 polices by claiming adoption in Pakistan at any time will fall within the specified invalidity rule and, absent other overriding provisions elsewhere in the Migration Regulations, will be treated as not valid applications. The instrument therefore sets the Department’s administrative boundary for acceptance of those applications.

Temporal enforcement: The instrument commences the day after its registration on the Federal Register of Legislation, as stated. The compilation notes record later amendments up to LIN 22/017. The instrument does not expressly state transitional arrangements within its text. The table of amendments in the compilation notes shows that paragraph 4 was repealed and substituted by LIN 20/049 and later amended by LIN 20/179 and LIN 22/017. Paragraph 5 was repealed in LIN 20/049. Those amendment entries are administrative history, not enforcement provisions; they do, however, indicate that the Department has altered lodgement form and place requirements over time.

This instrument functions as a specification made under the Migration Regulations 1994; it does not itself amend the principal Act or the Regulations' substantive text in this document, but it changes how certain provisions are applied procedurally and factually.

Statutory foundation: The instrument is made "under subregulation 2.07(5) of the Migration Regulations 1994" (opening recital). That subregulation grants the power to specify various matters for the purposes of Schedule 1 items, including form and lodgement details and other administrative requirements. Paragraphs 2 and 3 use that power to specify what counts as the "particular time" in relation to adoption-based eligibility and to declare invalidity where the specified adoption pathway is engaged. Paragraph 4 uses the same power to fix form and lodgement requirements.

Interaction with Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations: The instrument explicitly references items in Schedule 1 (items 1108, 1108A and 1211) and their subparagraphs (1108(3)(c)(ii), 1108(3)(c)(iii), 1108A(3)(f)(ii), 1108A(3)(f)(iii)). It also references subclauses in Schedule 2 (102.211(2) and 802.213(5)). The instrument does not amend the text of those items in Schedule 1 or subclauses in Schedule 2; instead it specifies how a term used in those provisions , the "particular time" linked to adoption claims , is to be interpreted for purposes of the listed subparagraphs in Schedule 1, by identifying country and period entries in the Schedule to the instrument.

Relationship to reg 2.10(2): The instrument includes explanatory notes after the table which reference paragraph 2.10(2)(a) and (b) of the Regulations. Those notes state that if an application is made outside Australia, it must be made in accordance with Division 2.2 or the item in Schedule 1 about where to make the application, and if there are no such requirements, applications must be made at diplomatic, consular or migration offices maintained by or on behalf of the Commonwealth outside Australia. The instrument’s place-and-manner prescriptions therefore interact with reg 2.10(2) by providing specific location rules that apply where Division 2.2 or Schedule 1 items require lodgement at particular places; where the instrument specifies an address, that requirement takes precedence over the fallback in reg 2.10(2)(b).

Operational interaction with migration decision-making: Decision-makers applying Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 provisions must apply the instrument where relevant. For example, the instrument tells decision-makers that if an applicant "seeks to meet" a Schedule 2 requirement by claiming adoption in the country/time in the instrument’s Schedule, the application is not valid. That changes the admissibility of applications under the migration decision-making framework and interacts with any existing departmental policies that govern acceptance, triage and processing of applications.

No alteration of substantive law beyond specification: The instrument does not purport to change the substantive eligibility criteria contained in the Migration Act 1958 or the Migration Regulations beyond the interpretative specification described. It does not amend the Migration Act nor does it create new rights or offences. It therefore interacts with the primary legislation and regulations by clarifying how certain terms and procedural matters operate in practice, rather than by altering primary legal tests.

Amendment and compilation interaction: The compilation notes set out how paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 were amended and repealed by later LIN instruments (LIN 20/049, LIN 20/179, LIN 22/017), and record the instrument’s registration and commencement dates. Practitioners must therefore read the instrument alongside the Migration Regulations and check the compilation history to ensure they have the operative text, because the instrument’s practical effect has changed over time through instrument-level amendments listed in the compilation notes.

The compilation information within the instrument provides the amendment history recorded up to the compilation date. The original instrument, Arrangements for Child Visa Applications 2016/051, was registered on 5 September 2016 and commenced 6 September 2016, as shown in the table under compilation notes. The instrument was made and signed on 1 September 2016 by the Assistant Minister acting under subregulation 2.07(5) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

Subsequent legislative instruments amending this instrument, as recorded in the compilation notes, are:

• Migration (LIN 20/049: Arrangements for child visa applications) Amendment Instrument 2020, registered 30 March 2020, commenced 1 April 2020. The table of amendments records that paragraph 4 was repealed and substituted by LIN 20/049, and paragraph 5 was repealed by LIN 20/049 (Table of amendments shows "s 4 rs. LIN 20/049" and "s 5 rep. LIN 20/049").

• Migration (LIN 20/179: Arrangements for child visa applications) Amendment Instrument 2020, registered 16 July 2020, commenced 17 July 2020. The table shows paragraph 4 was amended by LIN 20/179 (s 4 am. LIN 20/179).

• Migration (Arrangements for Child visas) Amendment Instrument (LIN 22/017) 2022, registered 4 March 2022, commenced 5 March 2022. The table shows paragraph 4 was amended by LIN 22/017 (s 4 am. LIN 22/017).

The compilation note at the head of the instrument states the compilation date is 5 March 2022 and that it takes into account amendments up to Migration (Arrangements for Child visas) Amendment Instrument (LIN 22/017) 2022.

The "Table of instruments" and "Table of amendments" provided in the compilation notes indicate which specific provisions were changed by the listed LIN instruments. The table indicates that s 1 was repealed (noted as "rep. Legislation Act 2003, s. 48C"), that s 4 was repealed and substituted by LIN 20/049 and then amended by LIN 20/179 and LIN 22/017, and that s 5 was repealed by LIN 20/049. The compilation table uses abbreviations ad., am., rep., and rs., which are defined in the note preceding the amendment table.

Practitioners must therefore consult the instrument as compiled to 5 March 2022, and note that the operative form and place requirements in paragraph 4 have been the subject of multiple LIN instruments. The instrument’s text as provided in this compilation reflects those amendments up to LIN 22/017, but the compilation notes show an amendment track that altered paragraph 4 and deleted paragraph 5. The instrument itself indicates it commences the day after registration and that its dates of registration and commencement are recorded in the table of instruments.

No transitional or saving provisions are recorded in this document for any of the amendments. The compilation tables list the instruments and their commencement dates, and show that each commenced the day after registration or on the date specified. The instrument as compiled should therefore be read with regard to its amendment history as recorded in the compilation notes.

The instrument, and the compilation material provided, contains no references to court decisions, merits review decisions, or litigation concerning the instrument. The only legal texts referenced in the instrument are provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994 (for example subregulation 2.07(5), Schedule 1 items 1108, 1108A and 1211, and Schedule 2 subclauses 102.211(2) and 802.213(5)), and the compilation notes list subsequent amending instruments by LIN number and registration date.

Because the instrument text does not name any cases and the compilation notes do not record any legal challenges or judicial commentary, there is no litigation history recorded within this source document to summarise. Any judicial or administrative law decisions that might have considered the instrument would not be contained in this instrument itself. Practitioners seeking litigation history must therefore search case law databases and tribunal decisions external to this instrument to identify whether the specifications in IMMI 2016/051 have been the subject of challenge.

The instrument’s declaration that certain applications are "not a valid visa application" could be a reviewable administrative action under the Migration Act and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in particular factual circumstances, but those avenues and any case law applying them are not contained in this instrument and are not discussed in it. The instrument includes no internal notes on legal challenges or appeals.

The instrument contains several concrete procedural and interpretative traps that practitioners should note, rooted in the text as compiled.

1. Invalidity tied to adoption claims for Pakistan means any time, not a limited window. The Schedule pairs Column A Country "Pakistan" with Column B Specified Period "No limitation on time period". Paragraphs 2 and 3 tie an application’s invalidity to a claim of adoption in the overseas country at the "particular time" specified by the instrument. For Pakistan, that means that claiming to have been adopted in Pakistan at any time falls within the instrument’s "particular time" trigger. Do not assume the instrument only covers recent adoptions; the Schedule explicitly says there is no time limitation.

2. "Not a valid visa application" is categorical and procedural. The instrument does not say the application will be refused, refused on merits, or that an officer may exercise discretion to accept it. It declares the application not valid. Practitioners should not conflate invalidity with refusal; instead, check downstream procedural rules in the Migration Act and Regulations to see how invalid applications are treated administratively.

3. The adoption-pathway trigger is narrow but absolute as written. Paragraphs 2 and 3 specify invalidity when the applicant "seeks to meet the requirements" in the stated subclauses by "claiming to have been adopted in an overseas country at a particular time". If an applicant attempts to meet those Schedule 2 requirements by some other factual pathway, this instrument does not make the application invalid. The critical question for practitioners is whether the client is attempting to discharge a Schedule 2 requirement via an adoption claim in Pakistan. The instrument does not define adoption or state how to prove or disprove adoption, so evidence and verification issues remain governed by other law and Departmental practice.

4. Form and lodgement strictness. Paragraph 4 mandates form numbers and a single pair of postal/courier addresses. The table requires posting with "sufficient pre-paid postage" or courier delivery to the specified address. Failure to use the specified form or place of lodgement risks non-compliance with the instrument, potentially resulting in non-acceptance. The table applies the place and manner to all three listed items, so even where two items use the same form (47CH) and one uses 918, the lodgement address requirement is the same.

5. Offshore lodgement interaction. Note 1 and Note 2 appended to the table cite reg 2.10(2)(a) and (b) of the Regulations concerning where applications made outside Australia must be lodged. If an applicant is outside Australia and the Division 2.2 or Schedule 1 contains conflicting lodgement requirements, those provisions govern. Where the instrument provides a specific lodgement address, that takes practical effect, but practitioners should beware that reg 2.10 provides an alternative path if there are no specified requirements. Do not assume an applicant outside Australia can use a diplomatic post where the instrument has a mandatory Australian lodgement address.

6. Multiple amendments to paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 has an amendment history recorded in the compilation notes (rs. LIN 20/049; am. LIN 20/179; am. LIN 22/017). Practitioners must ensure they are working with the current compiled text. The table in this compilation reflects the text as at 5 March 2022, but a further instrument could change lodgement addresses or forms.

7. No express transitional provision. The instrument contains no transitional provision in its operative text. Where applicants lodged claims close to the commencement or amendment dates, the absence of transitional rules in this instrument means application of the invalidity rule and the form/place requirements will depend on standard statutory commencement principles and any provisions in the amending LIN that expressly address transitional arrangements. Verify whether the relevant amending LIN instrument included transitional clauses not reproduced here.

8. Single-country Schedule may mislead. The Schedule lists only Pakistan. Do not assume other countries are affected. The instrument only specifies "the country listed in Column A" and "the period specified in Column B" for the Schedule entries. For any country not listed, the instrument’s invalidity specification does not apply. However, practitioners must confirm that the Migration Regulations themselves or other instruments do not impose similar specifications for other countries.

9. Practical delivery requirements. The "sufficient pre-paid postage" requirement may prove problematic for applications sent from overseas if postage rules or consular restrictions complicate sending to a Locked Bag address. Similarly, some courier services may not deliver to Locked Bag addresses, hence the instrument’s explicit provision of a courier street address. Check courier service capabilities and document postage or tracking to demonstrate compliance with the prescribed "place and manner".

10. No immediate guidance on evidence to avoid invalidity. The instrument does not explain how to structure alternatives if the applicant has an adoption background in Pakistan. Practitioners must scrutinise Schedule 2 subclauses cited (102.211(2) and 802.213(5)) in the Migration Regulations to understand the underlying requirements, because the instrument only excludes the adoption-route specified, without providing an alternative evidentiary pathway in this text.

To comply with this instrument, practitioners and applicants must observe both the substantive invalidity specifications and the procedural form and lodgement requirements set out in the instrument.

Step 1: Determine whether the applicant’s proposed pathway seeks to meet the Schedule 2 requirements by claiming adoption in Pakistan. Read paragraphs 2 and 3 alongside the instrument’s Schedule. If the application would "seek to meet the requirements" in subclause 102.211(2) (for item 1108) or subclause 802.213(5) (for item 1108A) by claiming to have been adopted in Pakistan at any time, the instrument makes the application "not a valid visa application". Therefore do not lodge that factual pathway for these items. Instead, consider whether the applicant can meet the requirements by some other pathway under the relevant Schedule 2 subclauses. The instrument itself does not provide alternative evidence standards; those must be sought in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations.

Step 2: Use the correct form. For items 1108 and 1108A, complete and lodge form 47CH. For item 1211, complete and lodge form 918. The table in paragraph 4 requires these specific form numbers. Ensure the form version being used is the current one required by the Department, and check that the compilation used (as at 5 March 2022 here) reflects any later LIN instruments that may have changed the forms.

Step 3: Lodge at the specified address and by the prescribed method. The application must either be posted with sufficient pre-paid postage to:

Department of Home Affairs Child and Other Family Processing Centre Locked Bag 7 NORTHBRIDGE WA 6865 AUSTRALIA

or delivered by courier to:

Department of Home Affairs Child and Other Family Processing Centre Wellington Central 836 Wellington Street WEST PERTH WA 6005 AUSTRALIA

The instrument requires posting with "sufficient pre-paid postage" or courier delivery. For posted lodgements from overseas, ensure postage covers return or certified posting where appropriate, keep tracking and proof of posting, and confirm that postal services handle Locked Bag addresses. For courier lodgements, confirm the courier can deliver to the Wellington Street address and retain tracking and delivery confirmation.

Step 4: Where the applicant is offshore, check reg 2.10(2). Notes appended to the table reference paragraph 2.10(2)(a) and (b) of the Regulations. If an applicant is outside Australia and Division 2.2 or the Schedule item prescribes where to make the application, follow those rules. If there are no such requirements, the fallback is to lodge at a diplomatic, consular or migration office abroad. Where this instrument specifies an Australian address for lodgement, however, follow this instrument’s lodgement prescription. Confirm location rules for offshore lodgement in the Migration Regulations.

Step 5: Avoid lodging an adoption-based claim from Pakistan for the cited Schedule 2 pathways. If the applicant has an adoption history in Pakistan, do not attempt to meet the cited Schedule 2 subclauses by asserting that adoption, because the instrument will render such an application not valid. Instead explore other eligibility pathways in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 that do not depend on that adoption claim. If there is uncertainty about whether a particular fact pattern will be caught by the instrument, document legal advice and consider pre-lodgement enquiries with the Department where available.

Step 6: Retain documentary proof of compliance. Keep copies of the completed forms, postage receipts, courier tracking numbers, proof of delivery, and a clear record of any alternative evidence or pathways used to avoid reliance on the adoption-based route covered by the instrument. If the Department queries validity, those materials will evidence compliance with the form and lodgement requirements, and show whether the application relied on an adoption claim linked to Pakistan.

Step 7: Stay current with amendments. The compilation notes show paragraph 4 has been repealed and substituted and later amended by LIN instruments (LIN 20/049, LIN 20/179, LIN 22/017). Confirm that the form numbers, addresses and procedural prescriptions in this compiled text are current at the time of lodgement by checking the Federal Register of Legislation for any further amendments after 5 March 2022.

Step 8: Consider professional representation for complex cases. For clients with any adoption history, particularly involving Pakistan, consider using a migration agent or legal representative to verify whether the client’s case would be excluded by this instrument and to identify alternative eligibility pathways under the Migration Act and Regulations.

Step 9: Do not assume appeal rights flow from the instrument. The instrument does not create an express right of review for a determination that an application is "not a valid visa application". If a client believes an application has been wrongly treated as invalid, seek advice on review rights under the Migration Act, merits review provisions in relevant tribunals, and judicial review possibilities, none of which are created or modified by this instrument.

Step 10: Document decision-making and communications. If the Department communicates that an application is invalid under this instrument, preserve the correspondence, cite the instrument’s paragraphs and schedule, and obtain reasons where possible. The instrument does not require the Department to give reasons, but objective evidence of the Department’s view will be important if challenging the administrative handling of the matter through available legal avenues.

Following these steps will align an applicant’s conduct with the specifications in IMMI 2016/051 as compiled to 5 March 2022.