Longwe (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485. The applicant had applied for the visa on 4 March 2019. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's compliance with the requirement to provide evidence of an application for an Australian Federal Police (AFP) check.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria set out in clause 485.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause requires that an application for a Subclass 485 visa be accompanied by evidence that the applicant, and any other person included in the application aged 16 or over, had applied for an AFP check within the 12 months immediately preceding the visa application. The applicant had answered "No" to a question in the online application regarding whether they had applied for an AFP check in the last 12 months, although they later provided evidence of an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) check obtained within that period.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant may have mistakenly answered the question about the AFP check, and while the ACIC check was sufficient for admission as a Legal Practitioner, clause 485.213 specifically mandated evidence of an application for an *AFP* check. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from *Anand v MIAC*, where the applicant had provided evidence of an AFP check application, and the issue was whether it had "accompanied" the visa application. In this case, the applicant had provided evidence of an ACIC check, not an AFP check, and had not provided evidence of having applied for an AFP check within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.