Criollo Blanco (Migration)
[2018] AATA 4290
•12 September 2018
Criollo Blanco (Migration) [2018] AATA 4290 (12 September 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Mrs Marcela Alexandra Criollo Blanco
CASE NUMBER: 1811722
DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2018/614968
MEMBER:Catherine Carney-Orsborn
DATE:12 September 2018
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:
·Regulation 2.03AA(2)
Statement made on 12 September 2018 at 2:35pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – character test – police check documents from Australia and home country provided – no criminal record – decision under review remitted for reconsiderationLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.03AA Schedule 2 cl 485.216STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 6 February 2018. The criteria for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa are set out in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Additional criteria are prescribed in Division 2.1 of Part 2 of the Regulations.
Regulation 2.03AA of the Regulations applies where a person is required to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 or 4002: r.2.03AA(1). In this case, 485.216 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations require the applicant to meet PIC 4001. The applicant is therefore required to satisfy the criterion in r.2.03AA(2).
Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requires that, if requested, the applicant has provided a statement from a relevant authority in a country where the person resides or has resided that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 6 April 2018 on the basis that the applicant did not meet r.2.03AA.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has provided a statement by an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history.
Has the applicant provided a statement from an appropriate authority?
On 6 February 2018 the applicant lodged an online application and responded yes to the question of whether she had applied for a police check in the last twelve months. She provided a lodgement number to show that the application had been made.
The applicant had previously supplied a Standard Disclosure to the Department. The Department required a Complete Disclosure Certificate. This was not provided within the timeframe and the Department made a decision.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a Complete Disclosure police check from the Australian Federal Police dated 22 May 2018. The certificate certified that there is no disclosable court outcomes recorded against the applicant.
On 30 August 2018 the Tribunal requested police clearances from Colombia.
On 4 September 2018 the applicant provided copies of an original Colombian police check with a translation. This certificate indicated that the applicant had no criminal record in Colombia.
The applicant has provided a statement from an appropriate authority and therefore meets r.2.03AA(2)(a).
Conclusion
On the basis of the above findings, the applicant meets r.2.03AA(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:
·Regulation 2.03AA(2).
Catherine Carney-Orsborn
Member
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Remedies
0
0
0