Ceralde (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4597

Ceralde (Migration) [2022] AATA 4597 (25 October 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms Joymie Formentera Ceralde
Ms Alexandra Dora Alcordo Navarro

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Ravi Vipulbhai Shah (MARN: 2117164)

CASE NUMBER:  2210382

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/2496798

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:25 October 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

·Public Interest Criterion 4005(1) for the purposes of cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 25 October 2022 at 2:52pm

CATCHWORDS  
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – health criteria – medical examination undertaken – decision under review remitted 

LEGISLATION 
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 485.216; Schedule 4, PIC 4005 

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 Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 24 December 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 8 July 2022.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of a medical assessment was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3. On 31 August 2022, the Tribunal received confirmation that the applicants had completed the required medical examinations and that they were both cleared for the purposes of PIC 4005(1).  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, including in relation to the secondary applicant.

4. 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

5. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

   ·Public Interest Criterion 4005(1) for the purposes of cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member