Park (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485, made by the first named applicant, and a related application by the second named applicant. The dispute centred on whether the first applicant had provided a statement from an appropriate authority evidencing whether or not they had a criminal history, as required by the regulations. The decision was made by Senior Member R. Skaros of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first named applicant had satisfied the requirements of regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations. This regulation mandates the provision of a statement from an appropriate authority concerning the applicant's criminal history. A secondary issue arose concerning the second named applicant's eligibility, which was contingent on the first applicant's visa status as a member of the family unit.

The Tribunal found that while the first applicant initially provided an AFP Standard Disclosure certificate, they subsequently provided an AFP Complete Disclosure certificate dated 18 October 2019. This certificate confirmed that there were no disclosable court outcomes for the first applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the first applicant had now provided the requested statement from the appropriate authority, thereby meeting the criteria under regulation 2.03AA(2)(a). Regarding the second applicant, the Tribunal noted that her application had been refused on the basis that she was not a member of the family unit of a person holding a relevant visa.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas for reconsideration. It directed that the first named applicant be considered to meet the criteria under regulation 2.03AA(2)(a). The Tribunal also indicated that upon remittal, the Department would reconsider the second named applicant’s eligibility for the visa, taking into account the outcome of the first applicant’s application.