Mirampally (Migration)

[2021] AATA 902

Mirampally (Migration) [2021] AATA 902 (19 January 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Srilaxmi Mirampally
Mr Prashanth Burrannagari

CASE NUMBER:  1932831

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/4846119

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:19 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant and second named applicant, respectively, meet the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

·cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl.500.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 19 January 2021 at 10:43am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa – adequate evidence of genuine access to funds provided– current COE – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 500,214, 500.311

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 Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 27 September 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 13 November 2019.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of Genuine Access to Finance under cl.500.214 was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. On 15 January 2021  the Tribunal received evidence in the form of a written submission, a current COE,  statements of support and bank account statements and transaction records in Australia and India in the name of the applicant and secondary applicant relating to the applicant and secondary applicant.  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.

   Secondary Applicant

5. The secondary applicant is the spouse of the applicant, a member of her family unit and hence meets the criteria under cl.500.311 of the regulations.

   Decision

6. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant and second named applicant, respectively meet the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

   ·cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   ·cl.500.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Mark Bishop

   
   

   Member