Dahal (Migration)

[2023] AATA 587

Dahal (Migration) [2023] AATA 587 (24 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Sanjay Kumar Dahal

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Suman Deuja (MARN: 1685956)

CASE NUMBER:  2216739

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1857021

MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay

DATE:24 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

·cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 24 February 2023 at 11:36am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – health criteria – evidence of medical assessment provided – 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 applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 28 September 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 27 October 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. The Tribunal has received evidence from Departmental records indicating that the applicant has “Finalised Health Requirement” and with the statement “Recommend Cleared.” In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal finds that the applicant satisfies PIC4005(1)(aa)(i) and therefore satisfies cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal finds that the criterion is met and that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

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 applicant 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 applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 visa:

   ·cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Joseph Lindsay
   Member