Othman (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485, against a decision to refuse the visa. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the requirements of clause 485.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to Australian Federal Police (AFP) checks. The decision was made by Rania Skaros, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had complied with clause 485.213, which mandates that a visa application must 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 preceding the application date. The applicant had initially indicated on her application form that she had not applied for an AFP check in the relevant period, leading to the delegate's refusal.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant later provided evidence, including an email from her employer and a reference number for an AFP check, this evidence was not submitted with the original visa application. The Tribunal noted that clause 485.213 requires the evidence of the application for the AFP check to accompany the visa application. Even if the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's employer had applied for the check on her behalf, the crucial point was that proof of this application was not provided at the time the visa was lodged. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria stipulated in clause 485.213.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, subclass 485, as she failed to meet the mandatory requirements of the visa subclass.