Kola (Migration)

[2022] AATA 3336

Kola (Migration) [2022] AATA 3336 (16 August 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Satya Janaki Raviteja Kola

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Lydia Te-Aroha Lago (MARN: 1174798)

CASE NUMBER:  2209950

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1663328

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:16 August 2022

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:

·Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for the purposes of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 16 August 2022 at 2:49pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – criminal history – National Police Certificate and Indian Police Clearance Certificate provided upon review – decision under review remitted           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 485.216, r 2.03; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4001

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 26 August 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 4 July 2022.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of criminal history 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 21 July 2022, the Tribunal received copies of the first named applicant’s National Police Certificate Immigration/Citizenship – Australia dated 25 August 2021, and his Police Clearance Certificate from the Government of India dated 4 June 2022.  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.

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:

   ·Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for the purposes of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member