Moturi (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1414

Moturi (Migration) [2022] AATA 1414 (9 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Satish Moturi

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Imran Ali (MARN: 0959879)

CASE NUMBER:  2202731

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1488197

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:9 May 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:

·Public Interest Criterion 4005 for the purposes of cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 09 May 2022 at 8:32pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Temporary) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – health criteria – evidence of required medical assessment not provided with visa application – completion of assessment confirmed by tribunal – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 485.216(1), Schedule 4, criterion 4005

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 28 July 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 18 February 2022.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of a medical assessment 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 4 April 2022, the Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had completed the required medical assessment and met the requirements set out in Public Interest Criterion 4005.  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:

   ·Public Interest Criterion 4005 for the purposes of cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member