Pokharel (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for Temporary Activity (Class GG) visas (Subclass 408) made by the first and second named applicants, and their son, the third named applicant. The primary dispute revolved around the applicants' compliance with a request for criminal history statements. The delegate had refused the visa applications because these statements were not provided by the requested deadline. The matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates the provision of statements from relevant authorities regarding criminal history if requested. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether, in light of new evidence, it was appropriate to dispense with a hearing and, if so, what the appropriate outcome should be.

The Tribunal found that the first and second named applicants had subsequently provided an Australian Federal Police National Police Certificate and a Nepal Police Headquarters Certificate, both of which recorded no disclosable outcomes. These certificates satisfied the requirements of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a). The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had provided completed Form 80s. Given this new material, the Tribunal determined that it was able to find in favour of the applicants on this criterion and dispensed with a hearing pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Temporary Activity (Class GG) visas to the Minister for reconsideration. The remittal was with the direction that the first and second named applicants had met the criteria under Regulation 2.03AA(2) for a Subclass 408 visa, and the Minister was to consider the remaining criteria for all applicants.