Letoa (Migration)

[2022] AATA 875

Letoa (Migration) [2022] AATA 875 (11 April 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Sam Dixon Letoa
Mr Meikah Jusepe Letoa
Ms Naia Aurora Letoa
Mrs Rachel Anne Letoa

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Eleonora Romanini (MARN: 1679969)

CASE NUMBER:  2112076

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/1295926

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:11 April 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 189 visa:

·cl 189232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 11 April 2022 at 12:26pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa – Subclass 189 – primary applicant’s income at or above the specified level – Notices of taxation Assessment provided– new evidence – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 189.232

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 applicants Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 1 April 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 25 August 2021.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of the primary applicant’s income at or above the specified level 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 14 February 2022 the Tribunal received Notices of Assessment issued by the Australian Tax Office for the financial years ended 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. The income of each of the years was in excess of the required level.

4. 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.

5. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicants on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.

6. Having found that the primary applicant meets the essential criteria referred to above, the appropriate course is to remit the application of the secondary applicants for reconsideration.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 189 visa:

   ·cl 189.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Tim Connellan
   Member