Raju (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1420

Raju (Migration) [2022] AATA 1420 (9 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Nitin Raju
Ms KIRATY SHRESTHA

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Nishta Ramnoruth

CASE NUMBER:  2204353

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2022145

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:9 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 189 visa:

·cl 189.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 09 May 2022 at 1:28pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa – Subclass 189 (Skilled - Independent) – notice of tax assessment not provided with visa application – copy of assessment received by tribunal – member of family unit – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360(2)(a)
Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 189.232

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 applicants Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 4 August 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 11 March 2020.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of the first named applicant’s Notice of Assessment from the Commissioner of Taxation for the financial year ending on 30 June 2020 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 25 March 2022, the Tribunal received a copy of the first named applicant’s Notice of Assessment for the financial year ending on 30 June 2020.  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, including in relation to the secondary applicant.

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 applicants 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 first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 189 visa:

   ·cl 189.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   Mary Sheargold
   Member