Aer (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5405

Aer (Migration) [2020] AATA 5405 (23 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Adelbert Eugenius Aer
Mrs Elizabeth Salindeho
Miss Elizabeth Stevani Aer

CASE NUMBER:  1936482

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          CLF2016/4167

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:23 December 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 884 visa:

·cl.884.411 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 23 December 2020 at 12:49pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) visa – Subclass 884 (Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary)) – second instalment payment now paid – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360(2)(a)

Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 884.411

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 Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 19 January 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 10 December 2019.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of the second instalment payment was not provided, as required by Item 1221A of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

3. In September 2020 the applicants provided evidence that the second instalment has been paid. The Tribunal wrote to the Department on multiple occasions, to confirm that the payment of the correct amount has been made. To date, no response has been received by the Tribunal.

4. In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal finds that the payment for the second instalment has been made. The Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

5. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicants on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 884 visa:

   ·cl.884.411 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Kira Raif
   Senior Member