Binita (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485, brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse the visa, which also affected a secondary applicant. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's failure to provide evidence of having applied for an Australian Federal Police (AFP) Check at the time of lodging the visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied Clause 485.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that a visa application must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant, and any other person included in the application aged 16 or over, had applied for an AFP Check within the 12 months preceding the application date. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's actions met this specific evidentiary requirement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had answered "No" to the question on the online application regarding whether an AFP Check had been applied for, and no details of such an application were provided in the designated section. While the applicant later provided AFP Checks issued after the visa refusal, the Tribunal confirmed that the critical requirement was for evidence of *application* to accompany the initial lodgement. The Tribunal distinguished this case from another AAT decision where an applicant had indicated an application was made and provided a receipt number, thereby satisfying the clause on its face. As the applicant failed to meet the requirements of Clause 485.213, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa for both the primary and secondary applicants.