Kumar (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (Subclass 482). The primary applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that had refused the visa, while secondary applicants, who were members of the family unit, also had their applications referred back for fresh consideration. The decision was made by Phoebe Dunn, a Member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of their criminal history, specifically a statement from an appropriate authority as required by regulation 2.03AA(2) and PIC 4001. A further issue arose regarding the secondary applicants, as their eligibility depended on the primary applicant holding a Subclass 482 visa, which had not yet been granted at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had now satisfied the requirement for providing police clearance certificates from appropriate authorities in jurisdictions where they had resided, including a certificate from the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, dated 9 February 2021. This was in addition to a previously provided Australian Federal Police National Police Certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the criteria under regulation 2.03AA(2). Regarding the secondary applicants, the Tribunal determined it could not make a direction that they met the family unit criterion because the primary applicant did not yet hold the Subclass 482 visa.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for GK – Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visas for reconsideration. It directed that the first named applicant met the criteria under regulation 2.03AA(2) in relation to PIC 4001 for the purposes of clause 482.217(1). The applications for the secondary applicants were referred to the Department for fresh consideration.