Patel (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1892

Patel (Migration) [2022] AATA 1892 (31 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Jay Kirankumar Patel

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr RAVI V SHAH (MARN: 2117164)

CASE NUMBER:  2119600

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2896241

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:31 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:

·Reg 2.03AA for the purposes of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 31 May 2022 at 10:24pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – criminal history – National Police Certificate - Immigration/Citizenship provided upon review – decision under review remitted           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 485.216, r 2.03AA; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4001

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 29 December 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 1 December 2021.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of criminal history 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 20 December 2021, the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s National Police Certificate – Immigration/Citizenship dated 24 December 2020.  It is apparent from the date of the certificate that the applicant had attained this check within 12 months of the time he made his application to the Department.  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:

   ·Reg 2.03AA for the purposes of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member