1513281 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 3728

1513281 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3728 (8 April 2016)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Lourdes Juana Espinoza Trujillo de Sandivar
Mr Jose Honorato Sandivar Rosas
Miss Shirley Lourdes Sandivar Espinoza
Master Kevin Jose Sandivar Espinoza

CASE NUMBER:  1513281

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/1885769

MEMBER:Sue Raymond

DATE:8 April 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) Subclass 461 visa.

Statement made on 08 April 2016 at 1:30pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 8 September 2015 to refuse to grant the visa applicants a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) Subclass 461 visa. Each applicant must satisfy primary criteria for the visas.

2. The visa applicants applied for the visas on 1 July 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that cl.461.212 was not met in respect of each of the applicants.

3. The matter was listed for hearing on 8 April 2016. Late in the afternoon on the day prior to the hearing the Tribunal registry received a communication from the representative, a migration agent, to the effect that the applicants were not going to attend the hearing. A written communication was also received to that effect. The migration apologised for the lateness of the communication.

4. There was no attendance at the hearing, as foreshadowed by the representative. The Tribunal has proceeded to finalise the matter by way of decision rather than exercising its power to dismiss the application.

5. On the information before the Tribunal, from the departmental decision record supplied with the application for review, it finds that:

   ·Each of the applicants is a citizen of Peru.

   ·Each applicant was in Australia at the time of lodgement of the visa application.

   ·There is no evidence that any applicant is a member of a family unit of a New Zealand citizen.

   ·Each applicant has not held a subclass 461 visa.

6. Cl.461.212 must be met by each of the applicants at the time of the visa applications. There are three requirements within this provision. Only one of them need be satisfied by an applicant. In this case none of the three requirements are met by any of the applicants. On the basis of the findings, each of the applicants does not satisfy cl.461.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. As this is an essential criterion for the grant of the visa, the visa applications cannot succeed. The decisions under review must therefore be affirmed.

   DECISION

   The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) Subclass 461 visa.

   Sue Raymond
   Senior Member