1510886 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa. The central dispute concerned whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 485.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant, and any accompanying person aged 16 or over, had applied for an Australian Federal Police check within the 12 months preceding the application date.

The court was required to determine the meaning of the phrase "accompanied by evidence" within the context of clause 485.213. Specifically, the court had to consider whether evidence of an Australian Federal Police check, if submitted after the visa application was lodged, could still be considered as having "accompanied" the application for the purposes of satisfying the criterion.

The court had regard to previous decisions, including *Panchal v Minister for Immigration* [2012] FMCA 562, which suggested that "accompanied by evidence" refers to something beyond the online application form itself. The court also considered *Anand v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2013] FCA 1050, where it was held that while evidence could potentially be supplied after lodgement, the phrase "accompanied by" was not so elastic as to encompass evidence submitted significantly later than the application. The court noted that the wording of clause 485.213, requiring that the application "was accompanied by" evidence and that the applicant "had applied," clearly located the substantive requirement in the past at the time of application.

Consequently, the court found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for the grant of a subclass 485 visa. The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the applicant was not granted the visa.