Bramta (Migration)

The applicant, Bramta, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm a refusal of a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary graduate). The visa application was refused on the grounds that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory Australian police check, as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). Specifically, the police check submitted was not made within the 12 months prior to the visa application date, as mandated by the regulations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's delegate had erred in law in affirming the refusal of the visa. This involved determining whether the delegate had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislative requirements concerning the validity period of an Australian police check for the Subclass 485 visa. The court was required to consider if the delegate's conclusion that the provided police check did not meet the prescribed criteria was legally sound.

In its reasoning, the court examined Regulation 485.223 of the *Migration Regulations 1994*, which stipulates that an applicant must provide evidence of an Australian National Police Check that was issued no more than 12 months before the date of the application. The court found that the delegate had correctly identified that the police check provided by the applicant was issued more than 12 months prior to the visa application date. Consequently, the delegate was correct in concluding that the applicant had failed to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa. The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding no error of law.