Cai (Migration)

[2024] AATA 1648

Cai (Migration) [2024] AATA 1648 (29 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Haotian Cai

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Yeming Cai

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Minghuang Yan (MARN: 1572947)

CASE NUMBER:  2317190

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/2066759

MEMBER:Justine Clarke

DATE:29 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 143 visa:

·cl 143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 29 May 2024 at 5:09pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa – Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) – Assurance of Support accepted by Centrelink – decision under review remitted    

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 143.228

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made on 18 August 2023 by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. On 16 June 2016, the visa applicant applied for the visa.

3. The review applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s refusal decision (the primary decision). The delegate made the primary decision on the basis that evidence of an Assurance of Support was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). That criterion is cl 143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

4. On 19 April 2024, the Tribunal received a copy of the letter, dated 10 April 2024, from Centrelink advising that Chi Ying Lau’s application to provide an Assurance of Support for the visa applicant had been accepted. In light of the new evidence received, 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 applicant based on 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 visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 143 visa:

   ·cl 143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Justine Clarke
   Member