Jeyaruban (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a Temporary Graduate (Class VC) (Subclass 485) visa to Ms Vithura Jeyaruban, her husband Mr Jeyaruban Velupillai, and their daughter Miss Aathviga Jeyaruban. The delegate had refused the visa because Ms Jeyaruban had not provided an Australian Federal Police National Police Certificate as requested, which meant she did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001, and consequently, her husband and daughter did not satisfy the family unit criteria.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate's decision was the correct or preferable one, particularly in light of new evidence provided during the review. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of clause 485.216 and clause 485.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which relate to character requirements and family unit membership for the Subclass 485 visa, and the operation of regulation 2.03AA concerning the provision of information about criminal history.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate had correctly identified that Ms Jeyaruban had failed to provide the requested police certificate, a subsequent Australian Federal Police Digital National Police Certificate had been provided to the Tribunal. This certificate indicated no disclosable court outcomes against Ms Jeyaruban or her aliases. The Tribunal found that this new evidence satisfied the requirements of regulation 2.03AA for PIC 4001, meaning Ms Jeyaruban now met that criterion. The Tribunal also considered that it would be poor administrative practice to refuse the applications of Mr Velupillai and Miss Jeyaruban solely on the basis of Ms Jeyaruban's initial failure to provide the certificate, especially when the delegate had not requested a Form 80.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the visa applications back to the delegate for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that Ms Jeyaruban satisfied regulation 2.03AA for the purpose of PIC 4001, and that Mr Velupillai and Miss Jeyaruban would satisfy clause 485.311 if Ms Jeyaruban were granted the visa.