NATCHATHIRAM (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2280

NATCHATHIRAM (Migration) [2020] AATA 2280 (7 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr CANAGASABAPATHY NATCHATHIRAM
Mrs RATHA LETCHIMIE CANAGASABAPATHY
Ms NAVETHA CANAGASABAPATHY

CASE NUMBER:  1812217

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2013/088478 OSF2013088478

MEMBER:Helena Claringbold

DATE:7 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISIOThe Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 143 visa:

·cl.143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

the secondary visa applicants meet the following criteria for Subclass 143 visas:

·cl.143.327 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 07 May 2020 at 5:01pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa – Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) – assurance of support – accepted by Centrelink – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 143.228, 143.327

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. On 4 July 2016, Mr Canagasabapathy Natchathiram, the applicant, applied for a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) Subclass 143 visa. The application was based on his relationship with his daughter, Ms Kavitha Kanagasabapathy, the sponsor. The applicant’s wife, Mrs Ratha Letchimie Canagasabapathy and his daughter, Ms Navetha Canagasabapathy are secondary visa applicants.

2. On 10 April 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Home Affairs refused to grant the visas. The delegate was not satisfied that an assurance of support in relation to the applicant and the secondary visa applicants had been accepted by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services. Therefore, the applicant did not meet cl.143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) and the secondary visa applicant did not meet cl.143.327 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations made under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). On 1 May 2017, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s Decision Record. This is a review of the delegate’s decision.

3. On 2 August 2018, the applicant’s migration agent provided the Tribunal with a letter dated 8 June 2018. This advised that the assurance of support in relation to Mr Natchathiram and Mrs Canagasabapathy had been accepted by the Australian Government, Department of Human Services, Centrelink. On 25 February 2020, the applicant’s migration agent provided the Tribunal a letter dated 19 February 2020. This advised that the assurance of support in relation to Ms Navetha Canagasabapathy had been accepted by the Australian Government, Department of Human Services, Centrelink

4. As a result of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant 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 Tribunal 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.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 143 visa:

   ·cl.143.228 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

   the secondary visa applicants meet the following criteria for Subclass 143 visas:

   ·cl.143.327 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Helena Claringbold
   Member